Wikipedia Compared to an Encyclopedia

Again this will be a post inspired more by will than skill. In other words where it lacks in actual information it makes up in sheer opinion. And when I use the word encyclopedia, I mean encyclopedia in the tradiotional sense of the word, for example, Encyclopaedia Britannica, a backbreaking piece of informative literature to drag about with you.

I know there has been a lot of criticism of Wikipedia, since anyone can go and edit it, which naturally tends to make the knowledge being offered biased to one direction or another, but that is also the case with every Encyclopedia – even with the ones, that aren’t open to be edited by anyone – because there is no such thing as neutral writing, there has never been, nor will there ever be. All writers lean towards one opinon or another even without realizing it, and there is nothing you can do about it.

Naturally with Wikipedia we are on a whole ‘nother ball court, since it can be edited by anyone as well as the malignant authors of drug companies, who may make the list of mentioned side-effects a tad bit shorter or find that the text doesn’t speak quite highly enough of the drug in question and correct the flaw. But it also gives way to the haphazard Wikipedia terrorist, who doesn’t quite share the view of science on evolution. These and various others are the viable flaws of Wikipedia, not to even mention the fact that most of the authors of Wikipedia are more connoisseurs than virtuosos of the matter being edited.

All those flaws are something real encyclopedias lack – or for the very least ought to lack. And for scientific texts you should never look for a sanctum in the hands of connoisseurs, but instead throw yourself into the safety of backbreaking literature.

But there is one area of interest Wikipedia might have covered better than any other medium. That area being the world of contemporary knowledge, since there is always some fan of a particular field, willing to contribute an article to Wikipedia when ever something ground breaking happens. This very likely also the case with some of the popular culture, for example, the literary world, excluding Harry Potters and Lords of The Rings, which have so many fans that there are probably terrific flamingwars about whenever some trollish creatures, finds its way to the editing board. Not to even mention articles about bands such as The Ting Tings, which have probably been filled with utter propaganda, since the day they were created…

So even though Wikipedia lacks a bit in the pedancy of normal Encyclopedias, it still has some good qualities. For example, being the ultimate place to waste a whole night of sleeplesness on…