Wikipedia vs Britannica

My topic of research was “holography”. I had no problems finding them on either website. However, the two results came out to be different in several aspects.

In means of attribution, Wikipedia has a list of footnotes with names and sources. However, who is to say that information given in lectures is true? I have had a share of information handed to me by teachers that has been false. I do not think facts shared in lectures should be posted on a website for the entire world to see and learn from on the internet thinking it is automatically veritable. When entering the site’s history, it claimed that 8 users have donated to the presented information on the site since the beginning of November, but that does not include all of those who have added information without confirmation yet. There are also a total of over 30,150 users who have donated to the page. It is possible to contact the contributors, but in order to do so you must be a registered user. All that comes to my mind is that, it is naïve to think that all the facts relating to holography on Wikipedia’s website are factual with that many donations.

Britannica, from what I found, has no visible author on the website; the only citations I saw were the MLA and APA formats to cite the information using their website name. I could not find a way to contact anyone who provided the information either. But that may be a good thing. When looking up information in an encyclopedia, it is information that I trust. It is a published book of facts. I should not have to doubt its truth or extent of factuality. Though Britannica seems like a safer bet when researching material, I must admit that there is no bibliography for either site, at least not one at easy access.

On both sites it was easy to find the date that the sites were last updated, but I found that Wikipedia is updated everyday. In fact, while on the website, since the start of this assignment, 40 people have donated their own tid-bits of information in just a matter of minutes! I find it ridiculous! Britannica on the other hand was recently updated in November of 2007, yet it was edited by Encyclopedia Britannica Online – the actual website and not its users.

Both websites have numerous links on the types of holography, the process of holography, an overview, etc. They are all “clickable”. On Wikipedia, the links keep you on the same page but scrolls down to the linked info. On Britannica it brings you to a new page focusing solely on the link clicked on. I found no “dead” links on either site. Overall, the links seem just as safe as the websites do; which for Wikipedia is not necessarily saying much, but still true. Further readings on different websites which are sponsored by google are made available on Britannica, but Wikipedia seems to keep its users on only their site.

Wikipedia has too much information, making it confusing to understand and also more difficult to find specifics. Britannica likes to keep it simple: not too much information on a single page, but instead links to other areas of the topic being researched. Both websites do, however, cover the same key concepts even though Wikipedia made me feel a bit overwhelmed when examining the information with all the extra details. Britannica is stronger in terms of organization than Wikipedia is; much easier to follow.

Wikipedia gives an opportunity to its users to add information, but does not give its users a chance to argue the points that are stated on its website. How logical is that? One is allowed to post, or “donate”, whatever they like, and if enough users agree it becomes fact? However, if someone disagrees with these “donated” pieces of information they have no opportunity to argue it. It seems pretty immoral to me. If Wikipedia is going to continue on with providing these so called “facts” then they need to make sure that they are 100% correct before feeding its users inaccurate information.

Britannica seems more trust-worthy because of the fact that it does not just let anyone post anything they would like and considered it valid information. Wikipedia seems to be of little use. How can one pick out the lies from the facts in the all mess of the website? If I had to choose one over the other, I would pick Britannica in a heartbeat. Britannica has the organization and is a published encyclopedia. It is not edited by whoever wishes to fabricate or add pieces of information.

America vs. Americans

America is a country in which a diverse range of people - Americans - that think quite highly of themselves. However, they are quite clueless of the world around them and what those from different parts of the world think of them. There are many negative influences in America that Americans do not realize, including the government. And so many aspects of the American culture are taken for granted by Americans. Americans have little understanding of their impact on other parts of the globe.

To me, America is the government and how it controls the United States. America is how the country reacts to issues around the world, but it does not involve the Americans because they have very little say on the country's reaction to these issues although our government is said to be the voice of the American people. Americans are very gullible of what the U.S. government tells them, as well as the media, and as a result, are left mislead and questioning why many foreigners "hate" us.

Navy Pier and North Pier

While exploring Chicago you will come across so many kinds of people: those of different cultures and different life styles. At Navy Pier we observed many tourists. We asked a few where they were from. Some came from as far as Venezuela, and others from China. We also noticed how commercialized Navy Pier was. Inside were many quaint shops selling Chicago gear, chain restaurants such as McDonalds and Starbucks, and stands selling little nick-knacks. There was plenty to keep visitors busy: theatre shows, musical shows, shopping, food, tours and sight-seeing (Lake Michigan), rides (ferris wheel), and even a Kids' Museum. It made you feel like you were still in the heart of the city although you were on the outskirts of Chicago because of all the people and surroundings around you.

North Pier was not as fascinating to me as was Navy Pier. Our group was out looking for another shopping mall like that of Navy Pier's off of the lake, and while searching for the location we came to discover that North Pier had been defunct and is now a condominium building as well as a newly established art exibit. When attempting to locate North Pier many had no clue as to where or what it was. Even tour guides were unfamiliar with it. When finally arriving to to the destination we found that there was much construction bordering the rusty colored building. Examining the surroundings of the building, we also noticed that which was facing the main street (Illinois Ave.) seemed to have been recently remodeled and that facing the water had been untouched. There were not nearly as many people in this area either.

Our group came to the conclusion that the true feeling of the "Windy City" lied in the downtown area, not in the outer-edges. Much of what inhibits the outer-edges has many tourist attractions and is meant soley for the public. We also came to the realization that no matter where you go in Chicago you will come across a wide diversity of people. In addition to the diversity, all of Chicago is a constantly changing city; always making improvements and updating itself.

Academic Dishonesty

It is impossible for someone to go through schooling without being guilty of, or at least witnessing, cheating. Academic dishonesty is taking credit for information or material that is not yours, or using certain resources when it is not appropriate. For a long time now, many educational institutions have made an effort by creating a honors system to cut down on the many forms of cheating, but have had little luck. There are too many temptations and stresses on students to make the act of cheating completely extinct. However, there are motions that can be taken to further decrease the amount of academic dishonesty in either a campus or high school.

As mentioned, every student has either taken part of or has been a bystander of some type of cheating. Some of those types of cheating are stealing papers or tests from a professor, buying papers online, plagerism, as well looking and copying off of your peers' test, quizzes, homework, etc. Many would go to say that the least serious, of the previously listed, would be copying homework, for the simple fact that most homework is worth few points and just "busy-work". But either way, cheating is cheating.

Some may also go to say that there are a few exceptions such as: borrowing old quizzes or exams to study off of from previous students of a shared course or unknowingly plagerizing (by using resources and not fully rewording the information). These are instances where I would agree that under these circumstances a person is not at fault of cheating.
Nowadays, schools have students agree to a honors system, but this measure has not been overly successful. There are further actions that need to be taken to minimize the cheating at these institutions. For example, if a school insists on a honors code, the expectations need to be clearly clarified and it needs to be fully enforced, even on first time offenses. Proctoring of exams, multiple versions of exams, professors and administrators speaking up when suspecting any type of academic dishonesty, using plagerism software, and/or more severe consequences once a student is found guilty are additional motions that can be taken.

Cheating is a serious hindrance, and something needs to be done to diminish the many occurances in all educational facilities. By acknowledging the different types of academic dishonesty, and then taking action, the numbers should decrease. Even if very slowly, it will have a positive effect on the student as well as the institutions in the long run. Students must also come to the realization the cheating has not one single benefit. Although it may seem much easier than doing work on one's own, it will only risk their education, their future job, their admission into a graduate/professional school. In the long run, it is truly not worth the gamble.

-Karly Callham