is encarta better than wikipedia?

Answer 1

Which Encarta are you talking about? Microsoft? I think Wiki's good but not always very reliable as it's open for the general public to edit so any idiot could write anything down.

Answer 2

I remember a study being carried out a couple of years ago in to both Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Brittanica, and it was found both had similar levels of mistakes, around 2%. Sadly, I can't recall my source as fastidiously as Wikipedia can. Wikipedia sources are usually readily apparent, Wikipedia is updated more frequently, Wikipedia is not bound by size. And it is better.I love how people state that anyone can edit it like they're letting you in on a secret. That's what the entire concept is based around.

Where Wikipedia is erroneous is often in trivial examples; it's theory is unsurpassed. You should take any publication's reference to a tale with a pinch of salt and research further for extrapolation; do you not think professional and widely published works repeat erroneous material? Wikipedia's frailties are all in the head. I think people, especially teachers, just fear something that has an infinite capacity for wisdom and no concrete form, constantly fluid and expanding.

I can't comment on Encarta.

Answer 3

Yes, Encarta actually has accredited people researching the information on its site. Wikipedia, on the other hand, has sites that could have been written by seven year olds. Don't ever use Wikipedia as a source; you will get laughed at.

Answer 4

Encarta is a traditional encyclopedia with edited and reviewed entries. Widipedia is an online adventure where the information is largely accurate, but may contain simple or whopping errors that can be maintained by a determined nut - the Glass entry said that Blenko had learned how to roll glass after he came to the US, when rolled glass had been made for centuries. Change it and it reappears a day later.

Answer 5

Wikipedia is not as bad as some people seem to want to claim, but it is hard to compare the 2 because of the totally different formats. If I want to find out something that need an authority, I will go to a traditional encyclopedia; but for up to date info on something that changes frequently, its hard to beat wiki.

Answer 6

i did no longer understand you need to discover Encarta on line. How approximately the two? some articles on Wikipedia are very small, yet dissimilar them are very thorough (am i able to declare that), and are as much as date on a widespread foundation. it rather is reliable to have diverse factors of view. of path, reckoning on the topic, one encyclopedia is sufficient.

Answer 7

no way . don't compare the best(wiki) with an average site(encarta).

Answer 8

well, idk about encarta but wikipedia is actually bad since neone can can change or add indo, which might be wrong info, so not very riliable

Answer 9

No way! Wikipedia is brilliant!, I can't belive how much is on it, ;- )

*Welshdragon

Answer 10

No