Wikipedia vs. Britannica

I searched for the topic of the greenhouse effect, because it correlates with global climate change. There were no problems in finding matching articles for the topic on either site. I did find, however, that the two different sites greatly differed. They layout their information in different ways, deal with publishing of articles differently, and differ when it comes to sighting their references. However, they both have information on the same topic, use diagrams to help portray the concept of the greenhouse effect, and give helpful other topics that correlate.

First of all, on the Wikipedia page, there is a “History” tab, which gives the display names of those who edited the article. I could view a self-written summary of each person. Some of the summaries made me question the credibility of the information. One userSln3412, states in his bio that he often edits pages, having a hard time separating his opinion from fact. He goes on to state that sometimes he writes things just to spring up conflict! The website states that the greenhouse effect article is semi-protected, which means it can be edited, but only by registered users. Although this is better than letting just anyone edit the page, it makes me question what it takes to be a registered user. Also, it did not appear that one could communicate with the editors. On the other hand, on the Britannica page, I could not find any information regarding the authors of the article. There was also nothing like Wikipedia’s “History” section. Also, the only way to contact anyone was to send comments/suggestions to the site. However, it did say that all comments or wanted edits would be read by the staff and in some cases reviewed by authors and advisers. This shows that it takes more to edit on Britannica’s website than on Wikipedia.

On the Wikipedia website, one can easily find the dates that edits were made by simply going to the “History” tab again. For the greenhouse effect article, some updates were made as recently as two days ago, and the rest of the updates were listed in order starting with the most recent. Once again, Britannica lacked information by having no indicator is to when the articles were published or edited.

Wikipedia also had a “See Also” section with a further article regarding the topic. There were many links throughout the article that would give information on the aspects being talked about. Some of these links included “Planet”, “Emission”, and “Global Warming”. There were about 55 of these links throughout the article. Britannica had these same kinds of links throughout the article, but it only had about ten, because the Britannica article was much shorter. Some of their links included “Atmosphere”, “Sun”, and “Carbon Dioxide”.

The Wikipedia page also displayed a list of references that were used. In total there were about 25. Some of them were books or magazines, but others were websites, which I could click on. The one I chose lead me to an article about ice samples on the BBC News website. The link was reputable. Although the Britannica page did not have links to other websites that were used as references, it did have a “Related Articles” section, which had 23 links that would bring you to other Britannica pages.

The articles on Wikipedia displayed much more information, and also went into details about the subtopics, such as greenhouse gases and the anthropogenic effect. The Britannica site had a much smaller page on the greenhouse effect, but it was much easier to approach, because it was not so overwhelming. It stuck to the basic idea I had searched, and did not have unnecessary information.

The “Discussion” section on Wikipedia shows different controversial connecting topics. It also shows a list of different posts people made in regarding the article. It allowed me to view each post. Britannica did not have a “Discussion” tab, but it did have “Subject Browse”, which gives related media (video), articles, and images/diagrams.

Overall, Wikipedia’s article seemed overwhelming. However, it did have important information, and it showed related graphs and images. In the end though, I think Wikipedia’s article is too long and seems far less reliable because of the easiness in editing the page. Britannica’s page was easier to approach and seemed much more relevant. It does not put related information on the same page, but it does give “Related Articles” and “Subject Browse”, which make it easier to navigate. I also trust the information more, since it is reviewed before being published.