actionforum(a)comcast.net wrote:
I haven't looked at the criticism or the articles,
but your comment about
readability, reminds me of several other articles. However, I think you
may be emphasizing the wrong standard of quality. Instead of the type
of quality you can only get with a uniform editoral staff, I think instead
you should emphasize value and information. Even an poorly written
article can be more valuable than an encyclopedia Brittanica article.
Yes, but it should be both. We should have quality information, well
presented.
I would not hesitate to send students to wikipedia for
this
reason, I would have them also take advantage of the talk
page, etc. They are more likely to get all POVs on wikipedia.
They should also learn to view information with a healthy
dose of skepticism, and to verify information themselves.
Wikipedia's state of flux, conflict and poor readability,
will all be heathy reminders of this, while Britannica may
lull the student into an uncritical trust.
Indeed, and don't get me wrong. I'm a huge fan of Wikipedia. :-)
But it's really not joyful to see bad writing in two very prominent
articles.
--Jimbo