Compare and contrast Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Britannica as a medium containing information on different branches of knowledge nowadays?
Some argue that comparing Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Britannica is “apples and oranges”, but it is unconvincing. Though there are a number of differences by nature, they do share the same function as a medium containing information on different branches of knowledge. The essay provides different perspectives to investigate two encyclopedias, both traditional and contemporary. This essay is aim to compare Wikipedia with the Britannica in terms of editorial choice, contribution, language, and accuracy.
The Britannica has been claimed to be a reliable research tool in academic field. First published in 1768, it is the oldest English-language encyclopaedia still in print[1]. At present, apart from the print version of 32 Hardback Volumes in the 15th edition, there are also electronic versions on CD-ROM, DVD[2] and the World Wide Web[3].
Launched in 2001, Wikipedia is a multilingual, web-based, free content encyclopedia project. Tancer (2007), general manager of global research at Hitwise, states “the sheer volume of content …is partly responsible for the site's dominance as an online reference. When compared to the top 3,200 educational reference sites in the U.S., Wikipedia is #1, capturing 24.3% of all visits to the category”. According to the official information[4], it approximately 9.1 million articles in 252 languages, comprising a combined total of over 1.41 billion words for all Wikipedias.
In regard to contribution, the latest version of the Britannica has 4,411 contributors, including some experts such as Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman, astronomer Carl Sagan, and surgeon Michael DeBakey[5]. According to Wikipedia, there are approximately five and a half million Wikipedians who can who write and edit articles for Wikipedia. Also, there are an unknown, but relatively large, number of unregistered contributors. While the Britannica is believed to be relatively reliable and dependable as contributors of every article are properly cited, the quality of Wikipedia’s articles is often criticized as it never requires its contributors to give their legal names or provide other information to establish their identity. However, the logic in this criticism is similar to an over-simplification as it is simply based on the assumption that all anonymous and unidentified contributors are not reliable at all. However, a Dartmouth study (2005) indicates that “anonymous and infrequent contributors to Wikipedia – whom they dub “Good Samaritans” – are as reliable a source of knowledge as those contributors who register with the site”.
Consistent with the ideas of pluralism[6], the open content seems to contribute to the diversity for the benefit of different parties, from mainstream to marginalized groups, helping to reach the aim of “neutral point of view”. Personally, a year ago, I created an entry[7] of a Hong Kong artist at Wikipedia. It has been modified by several times but luckily still exists. While it is almost unthinkable for a freshman at Lingnan University to participate in the Britannica, Wikipedia undoubtedly provides many with an open platform, which treats all men alike.
In terms of editorial choice, the Britannica and Wikipedia have distinctive differences. There is absolutely no doubt about the prowess of the Britannica’s illustrious contributors and editors. Even so, the transparency, independence and neutrality in editorial choice are questionable. In other words, the editors inevitably take the commercial interest into serious consideration before publishing since it is a business on every account.
Likewise, nowadays it would be ridiculous and politically incorrect for any medium saying the Ku Klux Klan as protecting the white race and restoring order to the American South after the American Civil War, citing the need to “control the negro”, to “prevent any intermingling of the races” and “the frequent occurrence of the crime of rape by negro men upon white women”, which were actually included in the 11th edition[8].
Many like Virginia Woolf once criticized the 11th edition Britannica for having bourgeois and old-fashioned opinions on art, literature and social sciences[9]. Without a transparent mechanism, it is really suspicious whether it was actually the ideas of these prominent editors and contributors or merely a means to serve the interests of certain authority. Furthermore, in the absence of transparent mechanism, the decisions to reduce or eliminate some topics to accommodate others can be always controversial and subject to constant criticisms. The important point is that an independent editorial choice of such a publication that has enjoyed a popular and critical reputation for general excellence for years could be dubious.
Unlike the Britannica, Wikipedia relies on the efforts of its community members[10] to maintain the neutrality of the articles, deal with the violation of violation of neutrality[11] and factual errors[12]. Within a community, the editors in good standing can run for one of many of levels of volunteer stewardship, begin with “administrator”[13], who is able to delete pages, lock articles from being changed in case of vandalism or editorial disputes, and deter users from editing, and go up with “steward” and “bureaucrat”[14]. Without the economic consideration, an independent editorial choice with a view to maintaining the “neutral point of view” is more plausible. Most importantly, by clicking the “history” of every entry, all wikipedians are able track back the information, including date, time, rationale, and name of user, of the removal and amendments. Thus, it reflects the unique transparency of wikipedia, which has not been a feature of the Britannica.
Combining the factors of editorial choice and contribution, there is one unapparent but crucial deference. The French philosopher Michel Foucault (1981) coins the idea “power is knowledge” which implies power reproduces knowledge by shaping it in accordance with its anonymous intentions. Hence, knowledge is never neutral, as it determines force relations. In this situation, on one hand, it is possible to claim that the Britannica has enjoyed the legitimacy and cultural and ideological hegemony through defining “what is knowledge”. On the other hand, it appears that Wikipedia empowers common people to define “what knowledge is”. In this sense, Wikipedia is priceless for the commons for it brings back the power to the people.
Language aspect plays an important role in Wikipedia over the Britannica. In the field of Psycholinguistics, the relationship between language and thought is debatable. Benjamin Whorf (1940) suggests the principle of linguistic relativity[15] which states an individual’s thoughts are influenced by the language(s) they have available to express them. Some even argue that language shapes thought, technically named linguistic determinism. Anyway, it will be difficult to deny any influence of language on thought.
As a world-wide website, some articles at Wikipedia are available in more than one language and translated articles represent only a small portion of articles in most editions[16]. Then, numerous articles are contributed by different native language users, and the originality and the uniqueness of these entries are greatly preserved. It allows bilingual or multilingual users to examine the possible variations derived from language difference. These seemingly subtle variations should be highly treasured under rigid standardization in every aspect of life or McDonaldization[17]. It is so true that the Britannica provides printed and online articles in different languages[18], such as Japanese, Chinese, French and Korean. Nevertheless, the Britannica pales in comparison with Wikipedia as its articles in different languages are inevitably standardized products.
In 2005, Nature, a scientific journal, on Wikipedia and the Britannica science entries, found that the two encyclopedias have similar degrees of accuracy in their content[19]. As a response, the Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. fought back by a detailed 20-page rebuttal back, claiming Nature's study as flawed and misleading[20]. It is impossible to deduct a widely acceptable analysis on accuracy as there have been more claims and criticisms than comprehensive academic researches. Hence, further researches should be done on this specific topic.
In comparing the accuracy, there are also two practical problems to be solved. Firstly, it will be a tedious and costly project to assess the accuracy of these two encyclopedias by careful examination of a number of articles. Secondly, through scientific methods, it is complex to evaluate accuracy of some topics, which are strongly related to interpretation and schema[21].
A research project led by Andrew Lih (2004), University of Hong Kong, introduces a special method for evaluating Wikipedia’s content, as its article quality has not been systematically analyzed in academic research. It is aimed to “establish a set of metrics to evaluate the quality of articles among many factors – number of authors, number of edits, internal linking, external linking, article size and other metadata from Wikipedia” (p. 2). The findings are as follows:
This study has provided a method for benchmarking the reputation of articles based solely on metadata, without requiring interpretation of article content. Though simple, this method of using information on edits and authors is immediately applicable to any of the 50 odd active language Wikipedia editions. The results indicate that there is a linkage between Wikipedia as a “working draft of history” and current news events. A great many Internet users will visit Wikipedia and contribute to it on their own volition, but the study points to clear cases where the citation in the press has driven traffic directly to articles and has improved them as a result. (p. 19)
Generally, there is a significant feature of Wikipedia over the Britannica. Scardamalia (2002) identifies “democratizing knowledge[22]” out of the twelve principles of knowledge building[23]. To a certain extent, Wikipedia is said to be a medium to democratize knowledge. Illustrated by a metaphor, in a democratic state, the significance of a voting system is not to select the best candidate but select out the worst. Similarly, the importance of Wikipedia’s open nature is not to generate knowledge of the best quality but discriminate knowledge of the worst quality via a consensus.
Reference List:
Carroll, J. B. (ed.). (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Foucault, M. (1981). The History of Sexuality, vol. 1. (pp. 92-102). Harmondsworth, Penguin.
Lih, A. (2004). Wikipedia as Participatory Journalism: Reliable Sources? Metrics for evaluating collaborative media as a news resource. Journalism and Media Studies Centre, University of Hong Kong. Retrieved on 2007-12-10. from http://online.journalism.utexas.edu/2004/papers/wikipedia.pdf
Tancer, B. (2007, May 1). Look Who's Using Wikipedia. Retrieved on 2007-12-10. from http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1595184,00.html
Rumelhart, D.E. & E. Ortony. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. In R.C. Anderson, R.J. Spiro & W.E. Montague (Eds), Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge. Hillsdate, NJ: Erlbaum Assocates.
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Chicago: Open Court. Retrieved on 2007-12-10. from http://ikit.org/fulltext/2002CollectiveCog.pdf
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge Building. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Education, Second Edition (pp. 1370-1373). New York: Macmillan Reference, USA.
Starlder, G. & Hirsh, J. (2002, June). Open Source Intelligence. First Monday, Volume 7, No.6. Retrieved on 2-9-2007. from http://firstmonday.org/issue7_6/stalder/index.html
Wikipedia “Good Samaritans” Are on the Money. (2007, October 19) Scientific American. Retrieved on 2007-12-10. from http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=good-samaritans-are-on-the-money
[1] Encyclopedias and Dictionaries. (2007). Encyclopædia Britannica (15th edition) 18. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.. 257–286.
[2] 2008 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD. Encyclopædia Britannica (UK) Ltd. Retrieved on 2007-12-10, from http://britannicashop.britannica.co.uk/epages/Store.sf/?ObjectPath=/Shops/BritannicaShop/Products/ENCL_ADLT_0813
[3] Britannica Online. Britannica.com. Retrieved on 2007-12-10. from http://www.britannica.com/premium
[4] Wikipedia. (2007). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved on 10-12-2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=176870157
[5] The New Encyclopædia Britannica. (2007). 15th edition. Propædia. 531–674.
[6] Pluralism:
A. A condition in which numerous distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups are present and tolerated within a society.
B. The belief that such a condition is desirable or socially beneficial.
C. The doctrine that reality is composed of many ultimate substances.
D. The belief that no single explanatory system or view of reality can account for all the phenomena of life.
Pluralism. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved on 12-12-2007, from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Pluralism
[7] http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%AE%8B%E8%8A%9D%E9%BD%A1
[8] Fleming, W. L. (1911). Ku Klux Klan. Encyclopædia Britannica (11th edition). Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved on 10-12-2007, from http://1911encyclopedia.org/Ku_Klux_Klan
[9] Thomas, G. (1992). A Position to Command Respect: Women and the Eleventh Britannica. Scarecrow Press.
[10] Wikipedia:Wikipedians. Wikipedia. Retrieved on 10-12-2007.
[11] Claburn, T. (2007). Wikipedia Becomes Intelligence Tool And Target For Jihadists, Information Week. Retrieved on 10-12-2007. from http://www.informationweek.com/internet/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=198500163&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_News
[12] Wikipedia Falsely Reports Sinbad's Death. (2007). Associated Press. Retrieved on 10-12-2007. from http://wcbstv.com/entertainment/Sinbad.Wikipedia.death.2.281748.html
[13] Mehegan, David. (2006). Many contributors, common cause. The Boston Globe. Retrieved on 10-12-2007. from http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/02/13/many_contributors_common_cause/
[14]Wikipedia:User access levels. (2007). Wikipedia. Retrieved on 10-12-2007. from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:User_access_levels&oldid=100160162
[15] “Formulation of ideas is not an independent process, strictly rational in old sense, but its part of a particular grammar, and differs, from slightly to greatly between different grammar. We dissent nature along lines laid down by our native language.”
(Benjamin Whorf, from his 1940 paper (Carroll, 1959, pp. 221-12))
[16] Wikipedia: Translation. English Wikipedia. Retrieved on 10-12-2007. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Translations
[17] “The principles of the fast-food restaurant are coming to dominate more and more sectors of American society as well as of the rest of the world.” (Ritzer, 1993:1)
[18] http://www.britannica.com/original?content_id=4447
[19] Wikipedia survives research test. (2005). BBC News. Retrieved on 10-12-2007. from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
[20] Fatally Flawed: Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature (PDF). Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc (March 2006). Retrieved on 10-12-2007. from http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf
[21] Rumelhart and Ortony (1977) defines schema as “a cognitive template against which new inputs can be matched and in terms of which they can be comprehended.” (p. 101)
[22] All individuals are invited to contribute to the knowledge advancement in classroom. (Scardamalia, 2002)
[23] Knowledge Building theory was created and developed by Carl Bereiter and Marlene Scardamalia in order to describe what learners of a community need to accomplish in order to create knowledge. (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003)
Some argue that comparing Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Britannica is “apples and oranges”, but it is unconvincing. Though there are a number of differences by nature, they do share the same function as a medium containing information on different branches of knowledge. The essay provides different perspectives to investigate two encyclopedias, both traditional and contemporary. This essay is aim to compare Wikipedia with the Britannica in terms of editorial choice, contribution, language, and accuracy.
The Britannica has been claimed to be a reliable research tool in academic field. First published in 1768, it is the oldest English-language encyclopaedia still in print[1]. At present, apart from the print version of 32 Hardback Volumes in the 15th edition, there are also electronic versions on CD-ROM, DVD[2] and the World Wide Web[3].
Launched in 2001, Wikipedia is a multilingual, web-based, free content encyclopedia project. Tancer (2007), general manager of global research at Hitwise, states “the sheer volume of content …is partly responsible for the site's dominance as an online reference. When compared to the top 3,200 educational reference sites in the U.S., Wikipedia is #1, capturing 24.3% of all visits to the category”. According to the official information[4], it approximately 9.1 million articles in 252 languages, comprising a combined total of over 1.41 billion words for all Wikipedias.
In regard to contribution, the latest version of the Britannica has 4,411 contributors, including some experts such as Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman, astronomer Carl Sagan, and surgeon Michael DeBakey[5]. According to Wikipedia, there are approximately five and a half million Wikipedians who can who write and edit articles for Wikipedia. Also, there are an unknown, but relatively large, number of unregistered contributors. While the Britannica is believed to be relatively reliable and dependable as contributors of every article are properly cited, the quality of Wikipedia’s articles is often criticized as it never requires its contributors to give their legal names or provide other information to establish their identity. However, the logic in this criticism is similar to an over-simplification as it is simply based on the assumption that all anonymous and unidentified contributors are not reliable at all. However, a Dartmouth study (2005) indicates that “anonymous and infrequent contributors to Wikipedia – whom they dub “Good Samaritans” – are as reliable a source of knowledge as those contributors who register with the site”.
Consistent with the ideas of pluralism[6], the open content seems to contribute to the diversity for the benefit of different parties, from mainstream to marginalized groups, helping to reach the aim of “neutral point of view”. Personally, a year ago, I created an entry[7] of a Hong Kong artist at Wikipedia. It has been modified by several times but luckily still exists. While it is almost unthinkable for a freshman at Lingnan University to participate in the Britannica, Wikipedia undoubtedly provides many with an open platform, which treats all men alike.
In terms of editorial choice, the Britannica and Wikipedia have distinctive differences. There is absolutely no doubt about the prowess of the Britannica’s illustrious contributors and editors. Even so, the transparency, independence and neutrality in editorial choice are questionable. In other words, the editors inevitably take the commercial interest into serious consideration before publishing since it is a business on every account.
Likewise, nowadays it would be ridiculous and politically incorrect for any medium saying the Ku Klux Klan as protecting the white race and restoring order to the American South after the American Civil War, citing the need to “control the negro”, to “prevent any intermingling of the races” and “the frequent occurrence of the crime of rape by negro men upon white women”, which were actually included in the 11th edition[8].
Many like Virginia Woolf once criticized the 11th edition Britannica for having bourgeois and old-fashioned opinions on art, literature and social sciences[9]. Without a transparent mechanism, it is really suspicious whether it was actually the ideas of these prominent editors and contributors or merely a means to serve the interests of certain authority. Furthermore, in the absence of transparent mechanism, the decisions to reduce or eliminate some topics to accommodate others can be always controversial and subject to constant criticisms. The important point is that an independent editorial choice of such a publication that has enjoyed a popular and critical reputation for general excellence for years could be dubious.
Unlike the Britannica, Wikipedia relies on the efforts of its community members[10] to maintain the neutrality of the articles, deal with the violation of violation of neutrality[11] and factual errors[12]. Within a community, the editors in good standing can run for one of many of levels of volunteer stewardship, begin with “administrator”[13], who is able to delete pages, lock articles from being changed in case of vandalism or editorial disputes, and deter users from editing, and go up with “steward” and “bureaucrat”[14]. Without the economic consideration, an independent editorial choice with a view to maintaining the “neutral point of view” is more plausible. Most importantly, by clicking the “history” of every entry, all wikipedians are able track back the information, including date, time, rationale, and name of user, of the removal and amendments. Thus, it reflects the unique transparency of wikipedia, which has not been a feature of the Britannica.
Combining the factors of editorial choice and contribution, there is one unapparent but crucial deference. The French philosopher Michel Foucault (1981) coins the idea “power is knowledge” which implies power reproduces knowledge by shaping it in accordance with its anonymous intentions. Hence, knowledge is never neutral, as it determines force relations. In this situation, on one hand, it is possible to claim that the Britannica has enjoyed the legitimacy and cultural and ideological hegemony through defining “what is knowledge”. On the other hand, it appears that Wikipedia empowers common people to define “what knowledge is”. In this sense, Wikipedia is priceless for the commons for it brings back the power to the people.
Language aspect plays an important role in Wikipedia over the Britannica. In the field of Psycholinguistics, the relationship between language and thought is debatable. Benjamin Whorf (1940) suggests the principle of linguistic relativity[15] which states an individual’s thoughts are influenced by the language(s) they have available to express them. Some even argue that language shapes thought, technically named linguistic determinism. Anyway, it will be difficult to deny any influence of language on thought.
As a world-wide website, some articles at Wikipedia are available in more than one language and translated articles represent only a small portion of articles in most editions[16]. Then, numerous articles are contributed by different native language users, and the originality and the uniqueness of these entries are greatly preserved. It allows bilingual or multilingual users to examine the possible variations derived from language difference. These seemingly subtle variations should be highly treasured under rigid standardization in every aspect of life or McDonaldization[17]. It is so true that the Britannica provides printed and online articles in different languages[18], such as Japanese, Chinese, French and Korean. Nevertheless, the Britannica pales in comparison with Wikipedia as its articles in different languages are inevitably standardized products.
In 2005, Nature, a scientific journal, on Wikipedia and the Britannica science entries, found that the two encyclopedias have similar degrees of accuracy in their content[19]. As a response, the Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. fought back by a detailed 20-page rebuttal back, claiming Nature's study as flawed and misleading[20]. It is impossible to deduct a widely acceptable analysis on accuracy as there have been more claims and criticisms than comprehensive academic researches. Hence, further researches should be done on this specific topic.
In comparing the accuracy, there are also two practical problems to be solved. Firstly, it will be a tedious and costly project to assess the accuracy of these two encyclopedias by careful examination of a number of articles. Secondly, through scientific methods, it is complex to evaluate accuracy of some topics, which are strongly related to interpretation and schema[21].
A research project led by Andrew Lih (2004), University of Hong Kong, introduces a special method for evaluating Wikipedia’s content, as its article quality has not been systematically analyzed in academic research. It is aimed to “establish a set of metrics to evaluate the quality of articles among many factors – number of authors, number of edits, internal linking, external linking, article size and other metadata from Wikipedia” (p. 2). The findings are as follows:
This study has provided a method for benchmarking the reputation of articles based solely on metadata, without requiring interpretation of article content. Though simple, this method of using information on edits and authors is immediately applicable to any of the 50 odd active language Wikipedia editions. The results indicate that there is a linkage between Wikipedia as a “working draft of history” and current news events. A great many Internet users will visit Wikipedia and contribute to it on their own volition, but the study points to clear cases where the citation in the press has driven traffic directly to articles and has improved them as a result. (p. 19)
Generally, there is a significant feature of Wikipedia over the Britannica. Scardamalia (2002) identifies “democratizing knowledge[22]” out of the twelve principles of knowledge building[23]. To a certain extent, Wikipedia is said to be a medium to democratize knowledge. Illustrated by a metaphor, in a democratic state, the significance of a voting system is not to select the best candidate but select out the worst. Similarly, the importance of Wikipedia’s open nature is not to generate knowledge of the best quality but discriminate knowledge of the worst quality via a consensus.
Reference List:
Carroll, J. B. (ed.). (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Foucault, M. (1981). The History of Sexuality, vol. 1. (pp. 92-102). Harmondsworth, Penguin.
Lih, A. (2004). Wikipedia as Participatory Journalism: Reliable Sources? Metrics for evaluating collaborative media as a news resource. Journalism and Media Studies Centre, University of Hong Kong. Retrieved on 2007-12-10. from http://online.journalism.utexas.edu/2004/papers/wikipedia.pdf
Tancer, B. (2007, May 1). Look Who's Using Wikipedia. Retrieved on 2007-12-10. from http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1595184,00.html
Rumelhart, D.E. & E. Ortony. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. In R.C. Anderson, R.J. Spiro & W.E. Montague (Eds), Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge. Hillsdate, NJ: Erlbaum Assocates.
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Chicago: Open Court. Retrieved on 2007-12-10. from http://ikit.org/fulltext/2002CollectiveCog.pdf
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge Building. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Education, Second Edition (pp. 1370-1373). New York: Macmillan Reference, USA.
Starlder, G. & Hirsh, J. (2002, June). Open Source Intelligence. First Monday, Volume 7, No.6. Retrieved on 2-9-2007. from http://firstmonday.org/issue7_6/stalder/index.html
Wikipedia “Good Samaritans” Are on the Money. (2007, October 19) Scientific American. Retrieved on 2007-12-10. from http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=good-samaritans-are-on-the-money
[1] Encyclopedias and Dictionaries. (2007). Encyclopædia Britannica (15th edition) 18. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.. 257–286.
[2] 2008 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD. Encyclopædia Britannica (UK) Ltd. Retrieved on 2007-12-10, from http://britannicashop.britannica.co.uk/epages/Store.sf/?ObjectPath=/Shops/BritannicaShop/Products/ENCL_ADLT_0813
[3] Britannica Online. Britannica.com. Retrieved on 2007-12-10. from http://www.britannica.com/premium
[4] Wikipedia. (2007). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved on 10-12-2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=176870157
[5] The New Encyclopædia Britannica. (2007). 15th edition. Propædia. 531–674.
[6] Pluralism:
A. A condition in which numerous distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups are present and tolerated within a society.
B. The belief that such a condition is desirable or socially beneficial.
C. The doctrine that reality is composed of many ultimate substances.
D. The belief that no single explanatory system or view of reality can account for all the phenomena of life.
Pluralism. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved on 12-12-2007, from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Pluralism
[7] http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%AE%8B%E8%8A%9D%E9%BD%A1
[8] Fleming, W. L. (1911). Ku Klux Klan. Encyclopædia Britannica (11th edition). Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved on 10-12-2007, from http://1911encyclopedia.org/Ku_Klux_Klan
[9] Thomas, G. (1992). A Position to Command Respect: Women and the Eleventh Britannica. Scarecrow Press.
[10] Wikipedia:Wikipedians. Wikipedia. Retrieved on 10-12-2007.
[11] Claburn, T. (2007). Wikipedia Becomes Intelligence Tool And Target For Jihadists, Information Week. Retrieved on 10-12-2007. from http://www.informationweek.com/internet/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=198500163&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_News
[12] Wikipedia Falsely Reports Sinbad's Death. (2007). Associated Press. Retrieved on 10-12-2007. from http://wcbstv.com/entertainment/Sinbad.Wikipedia.death.2.281748.html
[13] Mehegan, David. (2006). Many contributors, common cause. The Boston Globe. Retrieved on 10-12-2007. from http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/02/13/many_contributors_common_cause/
[14]Wikipedia:User access levels. (2007). Wikipedia. Retrieved on 10-12-2007. from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:User_access_levels&oldid=100160162
[15] “Formulation of ideas is not an independent process, strictly rational in old sense, but its part of a particular grammar, and differs, from slightly to greatly between different grammar. We dissent nature along lines laid down by our native language.”
(Benjamin Whorf, from his 1940 paper (Carroll, 1959, pp. 221-12))
[16] Wikipedia: Translation. English Wikipedia. Retrieved on 10-12-2007. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Translations
[17] “The principles of the fast-food restaurant are coming to dominate more and more sectors of American society as well as of the rest of the world.” (Ritzer, 1993:1)
[18] http://www.britannica.com/original?content_id=4447
[19] Wikipedia survives research test. (2005). BBC News. Retrieved on 10-12-2007. from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
[20] Fatally Flawed: Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature (PDF). Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc (March 2006). Retrieved on 10-12-2007. from http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf
[21] Rumelhart and Ortony (1977) defines schema as “a cognitive template against which new inputs can be matched and in terms of which they can be comprehended.” (p. 101)
[22] All individuals are invited to contribute to the knowledge advancement in classroom. (Scardamalia, 2002)
[23] Knowledge Building theory was created and developed by Carl Bereiter and Marlene Scardamalia in order to describe what learners of a community need to accomplish in order to create knowledge. (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003)
