People make mistakes. Whether it was Edison’s invention of the light bulb, or Einstein’s discovery of the photoelectric effect, or even Alexander Graham Bell’s invention of the telephone, each man had difficulties and made errors. Therefore, we can conclude that such inventions can contain some type of error or inaccuracy. For the past decade, two such “pedias” have been arguing about their accuracy, reliability, and facilitation. Even though it contains error by allowing common people to edit it, Wikipedia is a more helpful and a more comprehensive source of information because it allows for a quick, easy access to a wide variety of information in an efficient and simple way.
As a result of recent findings, scientists and modern commenters are now withdrawing most of their accusations against Wikipedia. Not only are critics realizing that its articles and information are void of numerous errors, but also are witnessing the rapidly increasing use of the site, compared to that of the Encyclopedia Britannica. One such columnist, Cecil Adams, recently withdrew his former accusation towards the free encyclopedia: “Quit with the it because from the standpoint of reliability, Wikipedia might as well be written by gorillas”(Adams). Critics, like Adams, were forced to change their views because of a recent journal that compared articles from both Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica. The journal, Nature, found out that out of forty-two articles analyzed by experts, both references contained the same amount of major errors, establishing the fact that the free encyclopedia is near accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica (Wolchover). Thus Wikipedia’s accuracy is better than what most reviewers thought would be.
Last year, Encyclopedia Britannica declared that they would no longer be publishing any more print versions. After losing thousands of sales throughout the years, this conclusion was only inevitable. One of the main reasons that led to this decision was its opponent Wikipedia. Compared to Wikipedia’s alluring free cost, Encyclopedia Britannica’s thousands of dollars fee is extremely unattractive (Silverman). Also as Encyclopedia Britannica only earns $11 million in revenue, its opponent has collected more than $60 million through donations. Besides all these key technical points of the success of the site compared to its declining opponent, there is also the main topic of popularity.
Website popularity is a key reason for sites to prosper. The more views a site has the better known it is. According to...