After re-visiting an encylopedia (something that I haven’t looked at since probably sixth grade) I was quickly reminded of why exactly I go to Wikipedia first for my early research needs. Not only did the hardback encyclopedia not give me the depth or breadth of information that Wikipedia did, we noticed that the online version of the bound encyclopedia was actually using pictures and information that we had seen earlier on Wikipedia! What better endorsement for the merits of using Wikipedia for an accurate and well put together jumping point for your research? Clearly when the tried and true favorites are citing an upstart that is commonly demon-ified (not a word, I know) in academic settings, there must be some type of merit to the new resource.

Even while exploring Encyclopedia Britannica online, its user format echoed some of the same things so familiar to us in Wikipedia. There is a place to adjust entries and make corrections–to contribute to the encyclopedia as a whole. It too, wants to be a learning community and wants to encourage its readers to participate and make their mark on its entries. Obviously something Wikipedia is doing is working for them because now they’ve got the old heavy hitters (and I do mean heavy–did you ever try carrying any of those volumes home with you?) imitating their style!

After searching for information about geraniums in the hardback encyclopedia and finding only three short, extremely scientific paragraphs about nothing of real interest, going to Wikipedia and finding pictures, cultivation advice, tips on things to do with geraniums, etc, there was no doubt in my mind that Wikipedia was the better-equipped resource.