Encyclopaedia Britannica & Wikipedia

Originally Posted by eriol

Btw, my friend was in Boston two weeks ago for participating in some kind UN simulation. She said one of the instructor told if Wikipedia is actually not a valid source for bibliography, since it's edited by a lot of persons, the informations could be considered inaccurate.

Firstly, that's sort of an obvious thing to mention. Secondly, it's not really a fact that bibliographical articles written by a limited number of people are inherently more accurate than those that can be freely edited. There are arguments for and against both sides.

Double Post:

Originally Posted by Stealth

Except you have to pay to use the full extent of Britannica. Instant fail.

Um, well if you're just curious about a subject, then yes. However for people that need to do more serious research, I imagine accuracy is more important than a few hundred dollars.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

It's a bit more convenient to have all that information available on a CD/online, wouldn't you say? I'm not really defending EB, I love Wikipedia as well; I don't think, however, that you can say something is shit just because you actually have to pay some money for using it.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Maico

I wonder if I could list Wikipedia as one of my sources for my next paper...

Definitely not, however any good Wiki article should have a list of sources at the bottom, you might be able to use some of those.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.