Wikipedia Vs. Britannica

I looked up Chicago in both Wikipedia as well as Britannica Online. Since this isn’t a small topic, it was easy to find exact matches for ‘Chicago’ in both sources.

Attribution:

Wikipedia: There is no identifiable author name, though it is stated that you can ‘edit’ each section, making it obvious that it could have been anyone. When the history tab is clicked, it comes up with a confusing list of users who have edited that page, and when it was edited. If you click on the user, it will give you a list of other entries that user has also edited. It does not really tell you if the author knows what he/she is talking about or not.

Britannica: There are two author’s names at the end of the article. They are Perry R. Duis and Cathlyn Scallhorn. When you click on their names, another page comes up showing what other articles they have contributed to, as well as who they are. For instance, Duis is a Professor of history at the University of Chicago, and has written the book Challenging Chicago: Coping with Everyday Life. The information about the authors of the article show that they have some knowledge about the subject. Each of this people would be much easier to contact than the authors of the Wikipedia article. Duis could probably be found on the University of Chicago website.

Recency:

Wikipedia: At the bottom of the entry, it says it was updated at 2:02 am on November 14th (this made me laugh, because it is still November 13th here…). Also, on the history tab, it tells you exactly when the entry was edited.

Britannica: I could not find an exact date that this was written, but I could find that it was included in the 2007 edition.

References:

Wikipedia: At the bottom of the page, there is a bunch of references listed, and each has a link to a page that pertains to the information used in this text. Almost all of them are ‘click-able’. The first reference is from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Britannica: I could not find a list of references.

Links:

Wikipedia: The links under the references can be used as links to other pages.

Brittanica: There is an ‘Internet Guide’ that links you to another page that gives reliable websites to go to, as well as magazines and other forms of information to use. All the links I clicked on worked.

Consistency:

I feel both entries contain basically the same amount of information, and the same type of information. The only difference I really found was that the Wikipedia entry seemed to be geared a bit more towards entertainment and the ‘fun’ parts of Chicago, then the Britannica entry was.

Bias/Controversy:

Wikipedia has a section for discussion. In there, it is told that the article is not considered a ‘good article’ and it needs to be improved. Then there are people discussion what is wrong with the entry. The only thing I could find like this on Britannica was were you could send an email to Britannica making suggestions about how to improve.

Overall Quality/Impressions:

Overall, I feel that Wikipedia is a good source to find out information on a topic from ‘regular people’, but if you are looking for information to use in a research paper, then Britannica would be a better choice. There is some good information to be found in Wikipedia, but not all of it should be counted on to be true. Wikipedia seems to require some picking apart to find the usable information, while Britannica can be used at face value.

American's = America?

Americans and America are two totally different things. Although the government leaders are voted on by the American public, the views and actions of the government are usually very different than most of the American people. I believe a major reason for this is that the American public does not feel the need to be educated on what their own government is doing. American's vote, and then after the people in power are set, they sit back, forget about the government's worries, and let the government do the thinking for them. Because of this, the American government acts on behalf of the people, but the people do not know what these acts are. If you ask most Americans what America is doing around the rest of the world, they will only have a small idea, and most would not care to find out much more.
America and Americans could easily become much more unified, but Americans need to work towards being involved in what the government is doing more so than the current level of involvement.
From reading this book, I got the feeling that mostly everyone outside of the U.S. refers to America and Americans as two different things. I thought it was interesting that Americans seem to be the only ones who do not. I also found it interesting that some foreigners would say they dislike the American government, but would love to live in America.

Exploring Chicago

Going on a trip to the city to observe is much different than going downtown for just leisure. I noticed many more things on this trip than I have in my previous visits to the city. The two places my group visited was the Harold Washington Library and the Museum Campus. I have been past the library multiple times, but this was the first time I went inside. To be honest, I did not expect the inside of the library to be so nice. It had nine levels, and the inside looked very elegant. Each level was full of people of all kinds. There was everyone from fancy looking business men to homeless with all of there possessions.
The second place we went to was the Museum Campus. I have been around there multiple times, but it was interesting to see all of the new sculptures around. In this area, it is very evident that Chicago values art and culture. The sculptures around there were each of a globe, but each globe was decorated in different ways to show different cultures perceptions of the world. It was also very interesting to see the view of the city from where the Museum Campus was.
This was a very fun trip, and a great way to view the city in a different light.

 For the discussion I read the article "Student Cheating" by Bill Puka. I
found this article to be very interesting, especially because it did not
take the normal stance on the situation. Not only did Puka discuss student
cheating, he also talked about the other side of the situation; the
teacher and administration side. I feel that Puka brought up some very
interesting points. He talked about how he wished he would have cheated
when given an unfair test. I feel that was something interesting to think
about, although cheating is still cheating. I also thought this quote was
interesting, "Isn't such negligent or disingenuous teaching more ethically
problematic than student cheating?". I believe, in a certain sense, that
statement is true.
 In my discussion group, we brought up the topic of what constitutes
cheating and if some cheating is worse than others. We came to the
conclusion that cheating was one of two things. First, cheating could mean
stealing someone else's ideas, beliefs, theories, or works as claiming
them as one's own. Or, cheating could mean using a tool such as a cheat
sheet, stealing a test, looking off of others, or another method of some
how getting the answers without having to think about them. My group came
to the conclusion that while cheating is cheating, and all cheating does
is take away from the individual, some cheating does not seem as bad as
others. For example, if someone cheats on a 'busywork' worksheet by
sharing answers with their friends since the information isn't really
important to them (though you never know when you may need to know
something) it would not be as bad as someone taking an essay from someone
else and using it as their own.
 Most of the time, cheating only hurts the one who cheats. In some cases though,
cheating can hurt many innocent bystanders. For instance, if someone cheated in
a class where the teacher graded on a curve, everyone in the class would be affected.
That means that cheating is not a victim-less crime. I do not believe that students who
cheat think about this, nor would they really care if they did.
 We also all thought about who was to blame and what should be done about
it. We talked about if students should be responsible to turn in their
fellow students who are cheating. Personally, I don't think that is right. I do
not believe that Elmhurst should use this method to stop cheating. Turning everyone
into tattlers would not be a good solution.
 Overall, I believe this discussion was very interesting. It gave me
something to think about even after the class ended and is something I
will continue to think about when I see forms of cheating going on around
me.