User:Technicolourtriumph/sandbox

Wikipedia articles

 * The Legend of Zelda.


 * Otter


 * X-men


 * RuPaul

Encyclopedia articles
The Legend of Zelda
 * 1) Britannica Academic Version

Otter
 * 1) Britannica Academic Version
 * 2) Free Encyclopedia

X-men
 * 1) Britannica Academic Version

RuPaul
 * 1) Britannica Academic Version
 * 2) Free Encyclopedia

Search Process
I chose the four topics at random. I wanted well known and less well known topics to choose from that I enjoyed. Unfortunetaly my less well known topics weren't on any of the online encyclopedias (not including Wikipedia). This surprised me because I felt other online encyclopedia's would have less known topics like Nintendo's producer Shigeru Miyamoto (who created Mario, Donkey Kong, Legend of Zelda). Yet they hardly had much information on those video game titles themselves.

The topic that surprised me the most was RuPaul, that entry alone matched Otter in online searches while X-men and Legend of Zelda had very little material. The reason for the surprise was because the later two have more current works. X-men releasing multiple bi weekly/montly comics under many titles and having multiple movies. While Legend of Zelda has over 30+ games over a span over the last 25 years.

I feel like generic things like Otter would of helped me out a lot more on encyclopedia cases because it tallied the most and most accurate information. Even if the X-men comics were from the 1960s, wikipedia had a better entry then those of encyclopedias. I suppose when it comes to certain niches it's best to stay with wiki when users can update and clarify things that updates itself so quickly while Otters have less of an update need.

Wikipedia
The Wikipedia article is lengthy and in depth with more than 8500 words. The topic is correct in detailing the Legend of Zelda series and not just the first game. It details everything from sound, music, gameplay, inspiration, main characters and their history throughout the years. It even specifies all sixteen games receptions and their cultural influence in the world. This is a very informative article that has multiples links to other detailed articles on the source.

Encyclopedia Britannica
The Britannica article is quite short at a total of less than 300 words. The article has a detailed introductory to the first game of the Legend of Zelda series. Yet further research shows only this article on the topic. The game storyline itself isn`t talked about in point but the improvements to gaming back in 1986 are what the main article consists of. It also includes a short part about the creator and game designer, Miyamoto Shigeru.

Based on the information given from the two articles it is clear that Wikipedia is the more informed on the issue. The Legend of Zelda and the Legend of Zelda series are two different topics that are hosted on Wikipedia but unfortunately the encyclopedia Britannica only has information on the first game of the series. Britannica doesn’t have much information on the game, surprisingly. Considering that in total the series has sold almost 68 million copies since the release of the first Legend of Zelda in 1986. The articles discuss different topics but touch on the same premise. Wikipedia`s overview explains mostly what the Britannica has, what the gameplay features and the creators inspiration. The Wikipedia article sources all of the sixteen games in the Legend of Zelda series and only the first is detailed in the Britannica. The description is quite detailed for the later. It talks about the electronic progressions that Nintendo made with the first game and how the creator made leaps in the video game generation. Wikipedia does an extensive scope of the history of Zelda. It explains the change in sound and music. They also go into detail on the settings and chronology of the land. They place the games in order of story and how it is placed in the timeline, as some games history link and follow a structure. It also does a short overview of three of the main characters of the series, Link, Ganon and the famous Zelda. It finishes with a summary of its history throughout the last 26 years of the series. The only topic addressed in the Britannica article is the first game and not the series. The series cannot be found on the online source anywhere. The Britannica article is asking contributors to expand the topic and has no sources of the information used. It only shows one link in the full article and it`s for an external website. The website linked is made by Nintendo, the owners of the Zelda franchise. The site itself only promotes the latest game and doesn`t inform the researcher of any information pertaining to the history or information on the game. The site is only meant for promotional reasons on part of the Nintendo franchise and features trailers for the newest game installment. Miyamoto Shigeru is the other link in the article. When clicked on it displays all other articles that the name shows up in. The only two articles that he is discussed in are “The Legend of Zelda” and “Wii Fit”. Britannica had no further information or even a biography itself on Miyamoto Shigeru. Miyamoto is the creator of Nintendo’s most famous character Mario from Super Mario Bros. He’s also created Donkey Kong, The Legend of Zelda, and multiple other large canon series. He received Time Asia’s 60 Years of Asian Heroes honor beside the Dalai Lama, Mahatma Gandhi and Mother Teresa. All these topics Wikipedia had linked in their article about Miyamoto. Contributors on the Britannica article are Henry E. Lowood and “The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica”. When researched, Henry E. Lowood is quite qualified to be the main contributor to the article. He is the curator in history of science and technology collections and has taught classes like “Game Studies: Issues in Design, Technology and Player Creativity”, “Gaming and Libraries”, and “Humans and Machines”. When reading up on the editors of Britannica it is mentioned that all of their articles are reviewed and edited by the fore mentioned. The website features a list of the editors and they explain that they have reviewed the site.

Wikipedia links to about anything referenced in its database from “action-adventure” to “Gerudo” (a fictional race in the Legend of Zelda series). While the Britannica article only had Miyamoto Shigeru as its singular link even if it didn’t link to a biography page. Almost every section heading has another main article attached. Almost every main topic is linked to a main article. All sixteen games are linked in the overview of history and each have a main article as well.

The contributors to the Wikipedia article are the general public. The revision history is a page on Wikipedia that shows every edit, revision, and format that the article has been in. It can be viewed in a number of different listings. Pressing 500 (lists five hundred edits) only goes up to January of this year. All listed minor edits or critical ones that demand a source. The earliest contributor was in August 2001. If we take the example of 500 edits in a year (not taking in consideration the media hype when there is a new release or information) that’s about 6000 edits on the page alone from the public. Both have their pros and cons. Britannica has a forum to discuss changes in the articles but a user must pay for their membership. Wikipedia has a free forum for users and enables editing for anyone. The large issue with Wikipedia is that most of the editing has a “P.O.V.” problem. Point of view is an issue when people are editing because of their view on some things are not biased. On the topic of Zelda, a first person adventure game, one can play the game many different ways. Making the article partial very difficult when it is being edited by the public. Britannica’s issue is that becoming a paying member to an online encyclopedia that isn’t overly updated seems to take on a heavier task for the payer. Would someone want to invest in a website when there is a free version that allows users to edit? Considering that Britannica has only the one article on The Legend of Zelda, one can assume that not many people pay for their membership.

Wikipedia has an issue with source verification. Though Britannica showed no sources the editor and contributor is one in itself. A professor in the field writing on the topic of Zelda can be cited and used in work. Wikipedia has two citation problems that have gone uncorrected. The first is from 2009 and the second January 2012. With such an active community it’s surprising to see that these have gone uncorrected. Mostly if taken in consideration that the community have been active since 2001. Problems like these must occur more frequently for articles in Wikipedia because of the free forum of users. The 2009 caption problem in the “Legend of Zelda: Setting” has its own main article with no referencing or caption problems, named “Universe of The Legend of Zelda”.

This can lead to the debate that Wikipedia is problematic because of the user interactivity compared to Britannica. While the later lists their contributors and has minor edits, Wikipedia has a large medium that can cause multiple problems. The problems are pranking (changing or altering text for the fun of it), POV (point of view situations), and sources issues (multiple reference and citation problems). These downfalls do not outweigh the excessive information that the internet can offer. With the general public as an active voice they can link multiple sources around the world in different languages and with an onslaught of information. In reference of The Legend of Zelda, Wikipedia has the upper hand because information from Japan can be linked about the topic. Nintendo, based in Japan, releases most of their press and information months and sometimes years before the North American press. Even pieces of memorabilia that are Japanese exclusive can be linked and sourced by a public foreign member easier than the Britannica source.

Britannica even if an appropriate source isn’t a comprehensive one. The first issue alone is that the Legend of Zelda falls under two categories, the original 1986 video game and the title of the ongoing series. Britannica only sources the original video game and does not support any other topic on the Legend of Zelda. The secondary but more prominent issue is that there is no online community for it to thrive. Britannica’s article can’t compare to the long 6000 times edited Wikipedia article. Alone the Wikipedia article is 8500 words in length while the other is less than 300. That doesn’t include Wikipedia’s extensive main articles that branch out with a multitude of sub-categories. All contributed from the free users that frequent and follow the site itself and the Legend of Zelda fandom. This results in making Wikipedia in general a more favourable format for current and trending issues. With an active community and following, Wikipedia far surpasses Britannica on themes that deal with youth culture and video games. Even though Britannica can be a more solid complex for referencing the more modern topics seem to be lacking because of their absence of outreach with the community. As the internet has now established itself a powerful source of information, reference tools like the encyclopaedia Britannica have less of an impact with modern sources like Wikipedia. Legend of Zelda is a series that has spanned more than sixteen games in a quarter of a century and should be easily retrieved for reference.