Know it All

1. What do you think were the author's main points in this article?

In Schiffs article "Know it All" she describes the Wikipedia website and compares it to the Encyclopedia Britannica. I believe her main points in this were about the community of Wikipedia and the reliability of the information. First of all, Wikipedia is not created by experts or professionals. Wikipedia is a collection of articles posted and edited by everyday people. Wikipedia contains over one millions articles, mostly composed by people sitting at home on their computers. This leads into Schiff's next point of reliability. Since Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, can you trust the content that is in the article? However, Schiff explains that the text is edited and re-edited every minute to ensure the correct information is being posted. Although there are some vandals, Wikipedia management try's to dispose of their edits and post the correct content.

2. An important part of credible writing is selecting good supporting evidence. Select a passage from this article that illustrates the effective use of supporting detail. Explain why you think it is particularly effective.

The real work at Wikipedia takes place not in Florida but on thousands of computer screens across the world. Perhaps Wikipedia’s greatest achievement—one that Wales did not fully anticipate—was the creation of a community. Wikipedians are officially anonymous, contributing to unsigned entries under screen names. They are also predominantly male—about eighty per cent, Wales says—and compulsively social, conversing with each other not only on the talk pages attached to each entry but on Wikipedia-dedicated I.R.C. channels and on user pages, which regular contributors often create and which serve as a sort of personalized office cooler. On the page of a twenty-year-old Wikipedian named Arocoun, who lists “philosophizing” among his favorite activities, messages from other users range from the reflective (“I’d argue against your claim that humans should aim to be independent/self-reliant in all aspects of their lives . . . I don’t think true independence is a realistic ideal given all the inherent intertwinings of any society”) to the geekily flirtatious (“I’m a neurotic painter from Ohio, and I guess if you consider your views radical, then I’m a radical, too. So . . . we should be friends”).

I believe this article is particularly effective in its description because it describes what the article is going to be about in its first sentence. It tells us that the community of Wikipedia is responsible for all of its success. It then gives values and numbers that describe the Wikipedia community. With these numbers it gives specific names of Wikipedia members. Then to sum up the paragraph it gives actual quotes from a Wikipedia incident. This paragraphs description gives us a full understanding of the Wikipedia community.

3. Throughout the article, the author compares Wikipedia to the Encyclopedia Britannica, but not specifically on design. How would you compare the two encyclopedias from a design perspective?

When you wish to use an encyclopedia, the thing you want most is factual information. I believe this part of the encyclopedia describes the behavioral aspect of design. In this sense I would have to give the edge to the Encyclopedia Britannica, simply because it is more reliable. However, Wikipedia allows for a wider range and a variety of topics. Along with the wide range of topics, Wikipedia is very accessible and easy to use. However, an encyclopedia may take time to find what you are looking for. This would give the edge to Wikipedia in user friendliness. I prefer Wikipedia, but strongly believe that both resources are great. Which one you use is completely based on the users preference and what they are looking for.