why prefer wikipedia and this is probably a bias pool since yahoo is kinda alyng with wikipedia and encarta is msns thing
2006-09-15 04:05:08 · 19 answers · asked by dachshund_lord 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Languages
spelling mistake why=i
2006-09-15 04:06:51 · update #1
wikipedia! It is checked by millions!
2006-09-15 04:08:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wikipedia
2006-09-15 04:14:35 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wikipedia.
2006-09-15 08:56:28 · answer #3 · answered by Earthling 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I didn't know you could find Encarta online. How about both? Some articles on Wikipedia are very small, but a lot of them are very thorough (can I say that), and are updated on a regular basis. It's good to have different points of view. Of course, depending on the subject, one encyclopedia is enough.
2006-09-15 04:52:47 · answer #4 · answered by Offkey 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have Encarta 2006 Premium Edition installed on my hard drive. I really like it. When I want to go to an on line encyclopedia, I go to Encarta, of course. I've never found wikipedia very helpful.
2006-09-15 04:14:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I remember a study being executed a pair of years in the past in to the two Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Brittanica, and it replaced into got here across the two had comparable stages of errors, around 2%. regrettably, i will't remember my source as carefully as Wikipedia can. Wikipedia sources are frequently comfortably obvious, Wikipedia is as much as date greater usually, Wikipedia isn't sure by using length. And it is greater powerful.i like how people state that any you could nevertheless edit it like they are letting you in on a secret. that's what the entire concept is predicated around. the place Wikipedia is erroneous is often in trivial examples; it rather is concept is unsurpassed. you may take any e book's connection with a tale with a pinch of salt and learn greater desirable for extrapolation; do you no longer think of expert and broadly revealed works repeat erroneous fabric? Wikipedia's frailties are all in the pinnacle. i think of people, particularly instructors, merely concern some thing that has an endless ability for expertise and no concrete type, continuously fluid and increasing. i will't remark on Encarta.
2016-12-12 08:56:11 · answer #6 · answered by shoaf 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I trust Encarta more. Wikipedia gets tampered with a lot.
2006-09-15 07:18:44 · answer #7 · answered by Brigid O' Somebody 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wikipedia sometimes do not have the really truth. Encarta is an encyclopedia made for people who make a loto of reserch.
2006-09-15 06:54:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
wikipedia
2006-09-15 04:09:11 · answer #9 · answered by dong ai rui 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wikipedia rules.
2006-09-15 04:13:40 · answer #10 · answered by Ricardo P 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
100% for wikipedia!
I find it more resourceful than encarta. It has got tons of stuffs I want :)
2006-09-15 04:12:27 · answer #11 · answered by Utsuki 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋