what kind of -pedia?

so the task today is to compare/contrast Americana Encyclopedia, Wikipedia, and Britannica.  so here goes. . .

Americana has good, solid info in it.  very clear. . . reads like, well, an encyclopedia the thing about it is it’s stagnant until the new edition is made next year.  it is easy to cite (assuming the students are allowed to cite and encyclopedia) because the information is coming from a single source.

Wikipedia is full of information–different subtitles of information:  early life, family, ministry, etc.  and it changes as the information changes.  like, if it’s about a person who isn’t dead or an organization that’s running strong, then the info can change in minutes to reflect the newness of whatever it is.  it would be hard to cite, though, because everyone is potentially an editor. hmmm. . .

Britannica.com is also full of great info.  however, you have to pay to get that great info.  the site says it’s updated “regularly,” so it’s gonna be more up-to-date than the stagnant book.  it also has a tab for folks to submit an edit or a comment.  but i believe it has to go through someone.

last thing–my group did a word count of each of the three:  Americana had about 280 words, Britannica had about 1,300 words, and Wikipedia had about 4,900 words.

Advertisement