I would choose the traditional encyclopedias as the only tool to be accessed since I believe they are more reliable than Wikipedia that the materials in the traditional ones are supported and checked by experts who make sure every information put in them is accurate as those who publish traditional dictionaries do. Although Wikipedia is more accessable as well as more easy to read some of its information provided by unknown sources may be wrong and misleading and some might even publish scams and tabloid articles to cause chaos. The modern one no doubt contains up-to-date materials with large quantities which can be changed any seconds but in terms of accuracy and usefulness it can be quite confusing and troublesome to us that we may be questioning wheather these Wiki's materials are real knowledges derived from correct sourses. If they are doubtful we cannot learn anything even the accessability is enhanced a lot by modern tecnology.
ya, stacie, i agree with u, i also doubt the accuracy and the reliability of the information in Wiki. if the world is full of those doubtful knowledge, then how can we know what the truth is ?
ReplyDeleteI see your point. But Can we know that what is right and what is wrong? Can we guarantee that the "fact" is a fact forever?
ReplyDeleteBowbowrain, yes you're right. Wikipedia is lacking of reliable sources.
ReplyDeleteChrizzzzzzz, I'm not saying all information of Wikipedia is wrong but the reliability of the sources is rather weak since some of its materials are not the final ones which can be changed anytime without a set of proofs before getting publinshed on the internet.