User:Tessacarole/sandbox

Wikipedia articles I am considering using for my main project
“Canadian Broadcasting Corporation." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 28 Sep. 2012. Web. 28 Sep. 2012.

“Canadian literature." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 28 Aug. 2012. Web. 28 Sep. 2012.

“Judy Blume." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 28 Sep. 2012. Web. 28 Sep. 2012.

"Polar bear." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 30 Sep. 2012. Web. 30 Sep. 2012. “The Walt Disney Company." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 27 Sep. 2012. Web. 28 Sep. 2012

Other encyclopedia sources I have located
“Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).” ''Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition''. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 28 Sep. 2012. “Canadian literature.” ''Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition''. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 28 Sep. 2012. “Disney Company.” ''Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition''. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 28 Sep. 2012. Higgs, Jennifer, and Sarah Church. "CBC." The Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica-Dominion, n.d. Web. 29 Sep. 2012. Hogan, C. Michael. “Polar bear.” The Encyclopedia of Earth. Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment, 21 Aug. 2012. Web. 30 Sep. 2012. “Judy Blume.” ''Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition''. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 28 Sep. 2012. "Polar bear." ''Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition''. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 30 Sep. 2012.

Search process, choice of articles, and initial thoughts
I chose these Wikipedia articles not only because they are subjects I am personally interested in, but also because I think they highlight both the positive and negative aspects of Wikipedia. Most of these articles appear to be of fairly good quality. For example, the article on the Walt Disney Company adheres to the general guidelines for good Wikipedia article quality: it uses reliable sources, has a concise lead section, and provides its content in a way that makes sense, dividing it into both thematic categories and chronological order. The Wikipedia article on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, however, contains a warning banner stating that some of the information provided may be based on out-of-date sources, thus potentially making the article less factually accurate. Similarly, the article on Canadian literature warns that some content may be based off of original research. These articles seem to represent some of the strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia as compared to other encyclopedias – specifically, the ability to provide extremely up-to-date information (if users contribute) and unreliability due to use of biased or unverified sources.

Most of the other encyclopedia articles I found come from Encyclopædia Britannica. This seemed to be the encyclopedia with the largest scope; it was the only one in which I found articles for all of my chosen topics. I tried to use other encyclopedias where relevant: for example, The Canadian Encyclopedia for the CBC, or The Encyclopedia of Earth for polar bears.

At this point, the most significant differences I’ve noticed between Wikipedia and other encyclopedias are scope and detail. Wikipedia is extremely comprehensive, having, at the very least, some kind of article for every topic I searched. Some of the other encyclopedias seem more geared towards a specific subject, such as The Encyclopedia of Earth’s focus on environmental topics. Though Encyclopædia Britannica, like Wikipedia, covers a wide variety of topics, the type of information provided seems to be slightly different – Wikipedia discusses Judy Blume’s personal life in much greater detail than Encyclopædia Britannica, which focuses more on her work. Another major difference I've noticed is that while other encyclopedias generally list the actual names of their researchers and editors, Wikipedia contributors are identified solely by their username.

Assignment 2: Wikipedia Comparison
Examining the Wikipedia and the Encyclopaedia Britannica articles on Canadian literature, one notices some interesting similarities and differences. A comparison of these two articles reveals some of the strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia as compared to more traditional encyclopaedias.

The Wikipedia article on Canadian literature briefly summarizes various facets of this topic, dividing the article into a number of different subcategories. It describes characteristics, categories and traits of Canadian literature, as well as French-Canadian literature, contemporary Canadian literature, histories of Canadian literature, notable figures, and awards.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Canadian literature also summarizes broad elements of the topic. It describes the progression of both English and French-language Canadian literature from settlement to present-day, noting significant authors and works in a historical context. The section on English-language literature chronicles Canada's earliest works, including exploration and travel literature, hymns, and historical romances; it then describes trends of literature in the 1900-60 period and concludes with an overview of modern works. The section on French-Canadian literature consists of a brief explanation of the significance of the French language, followed by background information on French-Canada's first literary works and movements. It describes various historical moments and movements including World War II and the post-war period, the Quiet Revolution, and French-Canada's cosmopolitan culture.

Both articles provide a relatively broad summary of Canadian literature. The Wikipedia article is much shorter than its Encyclopaedia Britannica counterpart, however, and there are some interesting differences between the two articles. Whereas Wikipedia includes “French-Canadian literature” as its fourth sub-section, the Encyclopaedia Britannica article notes right from the start these two different categories of Canadian literature and proceeds to summarize them separately (almost to the extent that one wonders if they should become separate entries in and of themselves). Furthermore, the Wikipedia article seems to have a decidedly Anglophone bias – it provides numerous examples of Canadian authors who write in English (e.g. Alice Munro, Margaret Atwood, Carol Shields, and Michael Ondaatje); the few specific mentions of French-Canadian authors appear only in the article’s brief section on French-Canadian literature. Encyclopaedia Britannica, conversely, provides roughly one thousand words more on French-Canadian literature than on English-Canadian literature.

Another major difference between the two articles is the degree to which they focus on history. Encyclopaedia Britannica’s article does cover many of the same topics as the Wikipedia article – for example, both articles mention several winners of the Governor General’s Award, and both articles discuss traits and trends in Canadian literature. However, Encyclopaedia Britannica discusses these topics in a larger context of history, stating, “Reflecting the country’s dual origin and its official bilingualism, the literature of Canada can be split into two major divisions: English and French. This article provides a brief historical account of each of these literatures.” Wikipedia, on the other hand, provides the information in a much broader manner and relates aspects of history to its specific sub-categories – the section on French-Canadian literature provides its information in chronological order, starting with, “In 1802, the Lower Canada legislative library was founded, being one of the first in Occident, the first in the Canadas,” and concluding with, “In 1979, Roch Carrier wrote the story The Hockey Sweater, which highlighted the cultural and social tensions between English and French speaking Canada.” Similarly, the Wikipedia sub-section on contemporary Canadian literature progresses from the late twentieth century into the twenty-first century, and its information on notable figures begins with Susannah Moodie and ends with contemporary author Farley Mowat. Ultimately, Wikipedia supplies less historical information, but it does also provide information that the Encyclopaedia Britannica article is lacking – for example, a fairly comprehensive list of Canadian literature awards, including the Dayne Ogilvie Prize for LGBT writing, the Prix-Trillium award for Franco-Ontarian writers, and the Dorothy Livesay Poetry Prize for British-Colombia poets, none of which are mentioned by Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Although Wikipedia’s article is shorter with both less historical information and less representation of French-Canadian literature, it is worth noting that the page also has two side-boxes. One side-box states that this article is part of a larger series entitled ”Culture of Canada,” and provides links to such related pages as “Bilingualism,” “Identity,” and “Languages”. Were one to click these links and read the related articles, they would likely get a more well-rounded view of the subject. The other side-box indicates that this article is part of a collection of articles on the “History of modern literature” and provides links to a number of articles on the histories of certain literature movements and national literatures; however, given that this article isn’t particularly history-focused, I question the value of its inclusion in this series.

Another major difference between the two articles has to do with contributors and suggested further reading. Whereas there is no way of knowing beyond a user name who contributed to Wikipedia’s article, the Encyclopaedia Britannica article is authored by David M. Hayne, Kathleen Kellett-Betsos, and Kathy Mezei, professors at the University of Toronto, Ryerson University, and Simon Fraser University,  respectively (although none are English professors, which may explain why the article is so history-focused). Encyclopaedia Britannica’s suggestions for further reading provide a multitude of critical journals and anthologies of both French and English-language Canadian literature, as well as some texts that focus on Aboriginal writing and women’s writing. Wikipedia’s recommended further-reading list is shorter, but is still somewhat inclusive, suggesting one book on Native writers and one book on French-Canadian literature. Wikipedia’s further reading is also slightly more recent, with more than half of its recommended works having been published in the last ten years; Britannica’s further reading, for the most part, has a publication date prior to the year 2000. Wikipedia’s more up-to-date further reading list is an example of the website's strength in terms of currency, however, Encyclopaedia Britannica provides many more recommendations.

In terms of quality, I feel that the Encyclopaedia Britannica has a far superior article on Canadian literature. Wikipedia’s article has been flagged as likely containing original research; multiple citations are needed and only three statements are evidenced by actual references. While a comparison with Encyclopaedia Britannica’s article indicates that the Wikipedia article’s information is generally correct (both mention early Canadian literature’s focus on frontier life and its more recent emphasis on multiculturalism), the Wikipedia article’s current lack of documentation makes it potentially misleading – without doing one’s own fact-checking, there is no way of verifying the article’s claims. As mentioned earlier, the fact that anyone can edit a Wikipedia article means that there is no way of knowing whether it was written by someone possessing a Ph.D in literature or by a high school student; thus, this original research is inherently unreliable.

Furthermore, I find that Wikipedia’s limited accounts of French-Canadian literature and the history of Canadian literature in general also reduce its quality. Encyclopaedia Britannica provides far more information in both of these areas, citing specific dates and eras (e.g. Quebec’s Quiet Revolution of the 1960’s). With regards to information provided by the Wikipedia article that is missing from Encyclopaedia Britannica’s article, it is significant to note that this added information (i.e. a list of awards, a more in-depth account of characteristics like irony, urban vs. rural tension, and underdog heroism) is without citations. Thus, even in the areas that Wikipedia provides more information, this information is of questionable veracity.

Despite these shortcomings, one must remember that Wikipedia is free of cost. Encyclopaedia Britannica, on the other hand, requires that its users have a paid subscription. Because it is so accessible, I feel that this Wikipedia article is still of some value; were it to be improved through citations, it might actually be of equal or better quality than Britannica’s entry. Although the Wikipedia article has the potential to be extremely misleading in its current state, it is important to recognize that, at the moment, the information it provides is actually fairly accurate – despite its being composed of original research, there are no radically misleading claims. Thus, depending on why one is seeking information on Canadian literature, the Wikipedia article may adequately fulfill a purpose. If a primary-school student were doing a project on Canadian literature, this Wikipedia article would not be an appropriate resource due to the fact that it is technically unreliable. However, given that its major shortcoming is its lack of citations, it could still be extremely useful for background information; if one were to use this article as a jumping-off point for further research at an academic level, that further research would likely serve as a fact-checker. Assuming the reader has a discerning eye, Wikipedia’s article provides a good general understanding of the subject.

A comparison of these two articles on Canadian literature reveals the strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia as compared to a more traditional encyclopaedia such as Encyclopaedia Britannica. While in this specific case, Encyclopaedia Britannica’s article is superior in terms of both quality and quantity of information supplied, Wikipedia’s article is not without merit – it provides relatively accurate and up-to-date information completely free of charge, thus increasing access to knowledge. Were this Wikipedia article thoroughly edited and expanded on, there is no reason that it couldn't be of equal or greater quality than its Encyclopaedia Britannica counterpart.