User:T.yale0001/sandbox

Wikipedia articles under consideration

 * Mount Aconcagua


 * Ferdinand Magellan


 * Nuclear Physics


 * The Great Depression

Articles from other sources

 * Mount Aconcagua from Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition


 * Aconcagua from Encyclopedia.com


 * Ferdinand Magellan from Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition.


 * Ferdinand Magellan from Enclyclopedia.com


 * Nuclear fission from Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition.


 * Nuclear physics from Encyclopedia.com


 * Great Depression from Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition.


 * Great Depression from Encyclopedia.com

Preleminary Research

 * When starting to look for Wikipedia articles I quickly decided to stick to a few relatively scientific subjects. Given that the main purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide a quick but thorough reference of factual events, people and things, it seems clear that any decent encyclopedia should be able to answer questions from a variety of disciplines.  I chose my topics because they were all things I had some prior knowledge of: Geology, History, Physics and Economics.  Having already read books on these topics I felt confident of being able to judge the quality of these articles.  They are also very factual topics and perhaps not as susceptible to bias as some controversial people and events can be.


 * I decided to compare the Wikipedia articles initially to two online sources instead of print encyclopedias. One, the Britannica Academic Online Encyclopedia, is a pay-for-access source which carries a high level of credibility due the Britannica’s print encyclopedia. The other is Enyclopedia.com which is a free website that generally provides brief articles with plenty of banner advertisements. They both seemed to have some similar features to the Wikipedia articles but there were definitely big differences in the quality of articles between the 3 sources I surveyed.  Britannica has a long history of publishing encyclopedias and as expected provided lengthy, dense, factual articles with a unique system of browsing through linked articles.  Britannica also provides extensive bibliographies for further research.  Encyclopedia.com, on the other hand, provides a very basic sketch on most topics although some well-known entries do have truly encyclopedia length articles.  The presence of online ads further seems to diminish the trustworthiness of Encyclopedia.com entries.


 * All things considered, the Wikipedia articles seemed to compare very favorably to other sources. There was generally not a considerably gap in the information provided by Wikipedia by comparison and in some instances the Wikipedia entries were perhaps even more up to date.  This is especially true in the case of Mount Aconcagua.  The Wikipedia entry includes quite a bit of mountaineering information which is highly relevant to Aconcagua as an attraction while the other encyclopedias seem to treat it simply as a geological feature in need of scientific description.  Of all the Wikipedia articles only “Nuclear physics” stood out as weakly written.  This could be that some other article covers the topic better or perhaps wikipedians haven’t found it that interesting yet.  I was pleasantly surprised at the authority of the Wikipedia articles but perhaps they would seem less so when compared to print sources.

Tim Yale 01:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

= Assignment 2: The Andes (mountain range) = During my preliminary research I had focused on the highest mountain in North and South America, Mount Aconcagua. However, encyclopedia sources for this particular subject are scarce so I decided to look at the Andes Mountains as a whole. This topic has in-depth articles in all major encyclopedias and I felt it fulfilled my own personal requirement of a general scientific topic.

I compared the Wikipedia article on this subject with its counterpart from the Encyclopedia Britannica Academic edition online. The topic is widely known so both sources have large articles with plenty of information. It was not clear to me at the outset that there were any great differences between them but further research has convinced me that the two are not equivalent and should not be used interchangeably.

Wikipedia Article: Andes
The Wikipedia article is relatively long, 3600 words, and is in the familiar Wiki format with a brief introduction and table of contents followed by a number of different subject headings and with photos and added information on the right sidebar. The topics have been divided into six categories: geography, geology, climate, flora, fauna and human activity. There is also a long list of the most famous peaks in the Andes range with photos.

The article is full of links, more than 200, with many of them connecting to articles on the specific features of the Andes and also some defining basic scientific terms. The article is available in virtually all major languages however I read some of the Spanish version and it is not a translation of the English but a different article altogether.

In overall appearance this article seems informative and easy to use. The subject headings break it up into small digestible chunks and there are quite a few photographs which stand out to reader. The article covers the most basic aspects of the Andes clearly for general purpose readers.

Like all wikis, the article has a history of edits which are still taking place today. There are notes calling for the expansion of certain sections and for greater citation in others. The article seems to be edited on a weekly basis although most of the edits are very short in nature. According to Wikipedia, the article is viewed over 60,000 times a month.

Britannica Article: Andes Mountains
The Britannica article has its own unique user interface. The main part of the screen is taken up by the text with a toolbar on the left side and tabs at the top. The article does not feature many items embedded in it but there is a set of excellent maps, created by Britannica, which describe the geographic features of the range. The article devotes a large chunk of itself to describing physically the mountain range. There is in-depth explanation of place names, regional distinctions and the borders of different areas. All other aspects are under the following subject headings: soils, climate, plant and animal life and people. The main body of the article is only approx. 2700 words but the article seems edited very concisely and it lays out a compelling and complete ‘definition’ of the Andes.

The article has a number of other features which are accessed through he left side toolbar. There is a media window with relevant pictures and videos. There is also a dictionary and thesaurus with useful definitions of scientific terms and foreign words and names. There are also tabs including a brief history of the article since 2007 and biographical data on the contributors.

Comparison
When looking at these two articles the first thing that strikes the reader is the impression that the Wikipedia article is much bigger and more colorful. Truthfully, the Britannica article has about 1000 words less than the other but much of the impression of size in the Wikipedia article is simply due to its very basic vertical layout. There are lots of color photos taking up space whereas the Britannica format has those types of photos either available from the toolbar or through links to related articles.

The two articles cover many of the same topics such as geology, wildlife and human aspects but, the Britannica article is extremely detailed in the physical description of what and where the Andes are. Due to the fact that the Andes are extremely long and cross several different nations and even climatic regions, there is a multitude of place names and regional designations to work through. For comparison, Britannica defines one of the Andean regions in these scientific terms,

"“The Central Andes begin at latitude 35° S, at a point where the cordillera undergoes a sharp change of character. Its width increases to about 50 miles…[until]The peak of Tres Cruces (22,156 feet) at 27° S latitude marks the culmination of this part of the cordillera. To the north is found a transverse depression and the southern limit of the high plateau region called the Atacama Plateau in Argentina and Chile and the Altiplano in Bolivia and Peru.”"

While Wikipedia lays out the entire system of regional classification in just a few words, ''“The Andes can be divided into three sections: Even the naming of the various regions is not the same between the two articles which invites questions about the authority and sources of the information.
 * The Southern Andes (south of Llullaillaco) in Argentina and Chile;
 * The Central Andes in Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia
 * The Northern Andes (north of the Nudo de Pasto) in Venezuela and Colombia that consists of three parallel ranges, the western, central, and eastern ranges. (The cordillera occidental, central, and oriental).”''

Although the Britannica article has video as well as photos included Wikipedia’s version is bursting with pictures and even satellite images of various mountains. There are at least 45 images which in general are eye-catching and really bring to life the various topics as you read them. In fact the final section of the article is a list of peaks with no less than 28 photos. Britannica by comparison is clearly lacking with only twelve images and 8 videos in total. The videos are generally appropriate and could be useful for educational purposes but the production quality is not very high. All in all, one should skip the videos and stick to the text of the Britannica article more than anything.

I think the scientific tone of the Britannica article stands out when you compare closely with Wikipedia. In reality a lot of the basic information about this subject will be repeated in both formats but the depth and accurateness of detail is not the same in both. In cases where the articles differ there it is easy to believe that the more authoritative Britannica article should be correct.

Specifically, both articles describe the entomology of the name ‘Andes’ but then give differing details. Wikipedia tells us that "“…The major consensus is that it[Andes] derives from the Quechua word anti, which means 'high crest'. Others believe that Andes comes from Anti Suyu, one of the four regions of the Inca Empire. It is more likely, however, that the word Antisuyo derives from the use of Anti to designate mountain chains.”"

Britannica however has other ideas when it states, "“ Some historians believe the name Andes comes from the Quechuan word anti (“east”); others suggest it is derived from the Quechuan anta (“copper”). It perhaps is more reasonable to ascribe it to the anta of the older Aymara language, which connotes copper colour generally.”"

When confronted with this situation it seems reasonable to err on the side of caution by presuming the Britannica information to be at least closer to the truth and certainly more likely to be accurate. The tone of the article and of course the credentials of its contributors are what lend real authority. In the case of Wikipedia there is always a lingering doubt about accuracy due to its open source nature.

Sources, citations and readings
When it comes to contributors, Britannica has a clear advantage over Wikipedia. The primary contributors for Britannica are two geography professors and the director of the Andean Institute of Biology. Also we know that much of the basic scientific information has accumulated over the long history of Britannica’s print encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not so lucky when it comes to contributors. As an open encyclopedia Wikipedia uses large groups of contributors to build articles. ‘Andes’ is no exception with literally hundreds of individuals making some kind of contribution. That said it is also clear that a small handful of people have been the most active through the article’s history. In fact the top 2 contributors to this article are professional geologists although not experts in this particular subject. As for the rest, most do not have specific credentials that lend any authority to the text. One can certainly argue that there is a certain democratic truth that the Wikipedia model generates but Britannica’s contributors definitely convey more credibility.

Predictably the two articles differed quite a bit when it came to references, further readings and citations. Providing good citations and outside sources is the only real way for a Wikipedia article to increase its authority however this article only pays some lip service to the idea. The article has 18 citations which at first would appear at least adequate. However when you look closer you notice that nine of those citations are from just one author who is cited in just one paragraph of the entire article. This means that most of the information in the article is not cited at all. While it is easy to verify the facts and figures involved, this lack of documentation does call into question the original editing process for this article. Reading and web links for this article are also generally weak. The readings include a couple of interesting titles such as The Andes: A Guide For Climbers, and The Andes: As the Condor Flies but not much else. For web links only one from the University of Arizona has any real scientific value with the rest being focused on tourism.

Britannica quite obviously looks at the idea of citation and bibliography differently. Most noticeably there are no citations in a Britannica article. The information has been collected over years and decades and compiled from many sources. Instead of directly quoting particular sources the Britannica gives a long list of further readings on the subject. The list they give covers most of the topics in the article very well although some of the titles were originally published thirty or more years ago. Web links are a real weak spot for the Britannica article. There are only two suggested web links that are attached to the article and neither was very useful. Considering the sheer number of public resources on the internet it seems that Britannica has willfully decided to ignore resources available online. This could be because of the lack of credibility or editorial control of most internet resources or perhaps Britannica is not keen on showcasing free resources from its own pay-for-content site.

Overall Assesment
Before looking at these articles closely I would not have expected to find many differences in the information they offer. There is a basic assumption that encyclopedias just contain a list of facts which anyone could type up. I believe these examples show how this is not the case. The Wikipedia article “Andes Mountains” is an easy to use reference on this topic but it is by no means a definitive source of information even on a general level. This article lists all the major facets of the topic dutifully but it does not reach a level of detail that would be considered as authoritative. The most obvious sign of weakness in the article is that Wikipedia has not made it a “featured” article. If so we would understand that it had been edited very carefully by high level contributors at Wikipedia. Instead the article has notes asking for expansion of material and citations despite having been published on the internet for over 8 years.

In terms of the subject matter covered by Wikipedia, some of the topics are covered well while others seem to be lacking. Notably, the Geology of the Andes is explained in detail with lots of links to further explanations of the geological terms used. The processes which formed the Andes are explained as well as the physical locations of the most important geological features. This topic stands out as perhaps the most informed of the article but as I mentioned earlier the top two contributors were geologists. In other subject areas Wikipedia does not do as well. The description of human economic activities seems complete enough however the article only briefly describes the actual people living in the Andes. In fact the information on native peoples can be summarized in just a couple of lines,"“Devastated by European diseases to which they had no immunity…the main surviving languages of the Andean peoples are those of the Quechua and Aymara language families.”" In contrast, Britannica devotes five paragraphs to describing only the native peoples of the mountains while ignoring the general populations of Andean countries. Other subjects in Wikipedia such as Flora and Fauna tend to feel like lists of information without much direction. The coverage in Wikipedia can only be described as hit and miss. Some of the information presented is definitive but some is decidedly not. This leaves the reader of the Wikipedia article needing to use their own judgment instead of the relying exclusively on the encyclopedia.

Britannica’s “Andes Mountains” is a definitive and in my mind authoritative source of information on this subject. The article seems to strive to define the topic in clear, real terms. The level of detail used encompasses all of the major aspects of the subject and though the sources used by contributors are not readily known, the credentials of the contributors and the quality of additional reading materials offered are both excellent. Further, the wording of the Britannica seems more concise. Even though there are fewer words in the Britannica article, it conveys as much or more pertinent information. One could assume that years of professional editing have contributed to the readability of the article. Perhaps the only category where Britannica could be found lacking is in images. There are simply not very many, only 12 in total, although there are links to other articles with more images and Britannica includes a function for readers to submit their own images.

Britannica does an excellent job of covering the various subjects connected with the Andes. Individually the subjects are not very long but tend to explain clearly the basic components involved. Specifically the geographic definition of the Andes is laid out in very specific terms all the way down to exact latitudes and features. The heading Plant and Animal life provides a clear example of Britannica’s superiority as a reference. The Britannica article describes the importance of latitude and altitude for plants and animals in the mountains and then describes in general terms what kinds of organisms are found in different environments. For example, "” On the plateau (valleys, plains, ranges, and internal slopes of the cordilleras), life again is closely related to altitude. Tropical palms and eternal snows lie within a few miles of each other, where altitude may vary from 1,600 feet in deep gorges to more than 20,000 feet in peaks and ridges. Up to an elevation of 8,000 feet, vegetation reflects the dry tropical and subtropical climate.”"

Wikipedia meanwhile tends to list off animals and plants in an attempt to mention everything that may be important. This list approach is exemplified by, "“The Vicuña and Guanaco can be found living in the Altiplano,.. Other animals found in the relatively open habitats of the high Andes include the huemul, cougar, foxes in the genus Pseudalopex, and, for birds, certain species of tinamous (notably members of the genus Nothoprocta), Andean Goose, Giant Coot, flamingos (mainly associated with hypersaline lakes), Lesser Rhea, Andean Flicker, Diademed Sandpiper-plover, miners, sierra-finches and diuca-finches.”"

Considering the authority of the sources and contributors and the clarity of the information provided, I would not hesitate to recommend the Britannica article as a reference on this source. Unlike the Wikipedia article, there is no need for the reader to be concerned about the credibility of the information or that something important has been left out. Anyone reading this article and wanting more in-depth information would be well served by the additional readings which I cannot say for Wikipedia.

Conclusion
As I originally stated, on the surface there does not appear to be a great difference between these two articles but having dug deeper I realize that they are not the same. Although it is very attractive and modern, the Wikipedia entry simply does not carry the authority, information or even accuracy of the Britannica. When reading a Wikipedia article it is easy to be impressed with the sheer volume of words and pictures presented. However, as any good editor will tell you brevity and being concise are important especially when conveying information.

Having some prior knowledge of this topic, I was surprised at the superfluous nature of some of the information presented by Wikipedia. Britannica on the other hand, used its article to define the topic in as clear and accurate terms as it could. This project has made me rethink the utility of Wikipedia and when I would use or recommend it. Truthfully the information in Wikipedia is generally accurate and valuable but its lack of authority and comprehensiveness take away from any confidence I would have using it. Considering that encyclopedias are meant as resources for people who are not experts in a particular subject, it seems clear that Britannica is the superior source.

Further reading:

 * Darack, Ed. "Wild Winds Of The Andes." Weatherwise 55.4 (2002): 28. Canadian Reference Centre. Web. 6 Nov. 2012.


 * Espinosa, Ricardo Manuel. "The Great Inca Route: A Living Experience." Museum International 56.3 (2004): 102-110. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Nov. 2012.


 * Flynn, John J., André R. Wyss, and Reynaldo Charrier. "South America's Missing Mammals." Scientific American 296.5 (2007): 68-75. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Nov. 2012.


 * Guidoni, Enrico, and Roberto Magni. The Andes. New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1977. Print.


 * Jacobs, Michael. Andes. Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint, 2011. Print.


 * Mcdonald, Maggie. "In The Thrall Of The Andes." New Scientist 181.2437 (2004): 46-49. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Nov. 2012.


 * Ruth Morris, et al. "America's Shadow Drug War." Time 157.18 (2001): 36. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Nov. 2012.


 * Schobinger, Juan.’ "Sacrifices Of The High Andes." Natural History 100.4 (1991): 62-68. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Nov. 2012.


 * Treadgold, Tim. "Our Shaky Future Under Pressure." Chronicle Of Higher Education (2012): 16-17. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Nov. 2012.


 * Wilson, Jason. ‘The Andes: A Cultural History.’ Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

Articles Featured:
"Andes." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 7 Nov. 2012. Web. 9 Nov. 2012.

"Andes Mountains." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 09 Nov. 2012.