After comparing Wikipedia to your good old fashioned encyclopedia and also to Britannica.com, the discussion kept coming back to Wikipedia being the superior source to begin your search for information. We found that the hard copy of the encyclopedia was geared more towards the drier scientific information (and only gave us 3 paragraphs of information). Not very encouraging if you want to know if it is a plant you might want to grow in your garden. Britannica.com was too confusing to use from the beginning and also requires a subscription. Too many advertisement popups and reminders to subscribe made this site a little cumbersome and annoying.
Wikipedia was by far the best site to use. Not only does it give you immediate access to other information with just a click of the mouse to further pursue your research, but it also provides tabs at the top of the article so you can see how often the information is updated and when or if the information is as up-to-date as you would like to believe. One of the drawbacks of Wikipedia is that it is an ever changing organism. What might be there today could be gone tomorrow. Researchers beware and remember, ”if you can find it on Wikipedia, you can find it from a source that has been verified as factual.” Good advice Allison! =)
Comments & Concerns