wiki

1. The main points of the article involve the evaluation and use of Wikipedia, along with its comparison to the Britannica encyclopedia. Points are made on how Wikipedia can become all encompassing, and how it has no real limit on size which is something that Britannica cannot do. Also, it comments on Wikipedia’s reliability as a source. One of its primary downfalls.
2. “Wales also appointed an arbitration committee to rule on disputes. Before a case reaches the arbitration committee, it often passes through a mediation committee.” This seems an effective means of dealing with disputes. A disputed article will be passed through a meditation committee and then an arbitration committee who can find whatever resource necessary to make sure that the correct information is found on Wikipedia.
3. From a design perspective the encyclopedias are very different. Wikipedia is only available online, and is constantly changing. This can be good and bad in many ways. For one, it allows for the availability of almost any topic, but it also sacrifices quality. The Britannica encyclopedia can be found in a hard copy, is professionally written, and has three flaws to Wikipedia’s every four. Overall, Wikipedia is viscerally more appealing due to its more modern aspect. However, in my opinion, reflectively and behaviorally Britannica is the better option.