Wikipedia information is totally based on the readers. They are the creators of the information. Wikipedia ensures the users participation which reminds us the feature of web2.0. There is a definition in wikipedia about web2.0, “Web 2.0, a phrase coined by O'Reilly Media in 2004, refers to a perceived second-generation of Web based communities and hosted services—such as social networking sites, wikis and folksonomies—that facilitate collaboration and sharing between users. O'Reilly Media titled a series of conferences around the phrase, and it has since become widely adopted.
Though the term suggests a new version of the Web, it does not refer to an update to Internet or World Wide Web technical specifications, but to changes in the ways the platform is used. According to Tim O'Reilly, Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform.” All the information is open to all. People can edit it and put some updated information. People can ask about the authenticity of the information. But the information is not wrong, since the other editors verify the information carefully. According to the main site of wikipedia, “Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world. With rare exceptions, its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet, simply by clicking the edit this page link. The name Wikipedia is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a type of collaborative website) and encyclopaedia. Since its creation in 2001, Wikipedia has grown rapidly into one of the largest reference Web sites on the Internet.” On the contrary, the Britannica encyclopaedia information is verified by expert. As a consequence, authenticity of information is not questionable. There are some rules and regulation in wikipedia which clearly describe the roles of the developers. If we clearly take a look at the basic difference between them, we will find that both sites are devoted to their readers. So, in that sense, people get more liberty in wikipedia than that of Britannica. Another provocative offer of wikipedia is free service. For getting information, payment is not required. On the contrary, payment is required for the information of Britannica.
I have selected a topic about virtual reality from both sites. I have found very up to date information in the wikipedia. And the representation of the information is user friendly. Consequently, I do not face any problem when I retrieve data. The Britannica provides a series of information as a list. The main problem, as I mention before, is that all items in the Britannica are not free. We have to pay money for getting the information. The content in both sites are alike. So for getting the same quality information, I am not eager to pay. Some associate links are available to find out more information about the topic in the Britannica. The wikipedia is really a revolution in the sense of free flow of information.
No comments:
Post a Comment