Is Wikipedia Better Than Microsoft Encarta?

[fermin25 3]

Hi I have this question to the community. This question borns in a topic where tells that Microsoft will not sell Encarta anymore because Wikipedia is so strong that The marketing is not good for Encarta.But I?m not agree. Microsoft Encarta is much better than Wikipedia. I grow my knowledge with the Encarta in my computer. I know that Wikipedia is great too, but Encarta have contents that are confirmed and aren?t upload for internet users who easily can post fake contents.For example one night I was reading the Ronald Reagan?s biography on Wikipedia and I found that in the first line was "Ronald Reagan was the first homosexual became president of the United States", I fell bad for this line and I edited it. But if someone who didn?t know anything about Ronald Reagan reads this line on Wikipedia maybe will be wrong in a aspect of the Ronald Reagan?s life but he?d believe he was rigth because he read it on Wikipedia.Beacuse all this Encarta is much better than Wikipedia and I don?t understand why Microsoft is not selling Encarta anymore.Microsoft Encarta have all the media to a click of distance but wikipedia don?t.Maybe Microsoft is overreacting about Wikipedia and its menace to Encarta.What do you think?

[hanorotu 0]

Encarta may be better and have more accurate content. But more people use Wikipedia. I mean, personally, I have never used Encarta. I have always used wiki. Wikipedia was made by humans so of course there are going to be mistakes. If I am not badly mistaken Encarta was made by a corporation, not by users of the internet.

[Saint_Michael 3]

Well Wikipedia is better now, because of the fact Encarta is going offline this year after about 10+ years of being online. Of course, it was Wikipedia that caused the fall of Encarta to begin with, but what gets me is that Microsoft can easily afford to maintain it. However, because of Wikipedia's popularity and how open it is with the information, encarta has lost a large chunk of visitors over the years.However, because of that open source of Wikipedia many Colleges and Universities dislike that site, not because of the information that is on there but anyone could change it for who knows what reasons. Either way, Wikipedia is the dominate form of information for people to look for.

[onscreen 0]

Encarta may be better and have more accurate content. But more people use Wikipedia. I mean, personally, I have never used Encarta. I have always used wiki.
Wikipedia was made by humans so of course there are going to be mistakes. If I am not badly mistaken Encarta was made by a corporation, not by users of the internet.

The truth is inaccurate information was on purpose. I have seen many wiki entries that is edited by jerks and even included links to porn and so on. Usually they target on famous people like the Presidents, book authors etc..

Wikipedia on the good side is they no need to pay anyone to sit the whole day making accuracy on the information since its all driven by the users. I rely on Wikipedia heavily on my research and so far, i have yet to encounter inaccuracy in information.

[rob86 2]

I'm honestly surprised Wikipedia is as great as it is. You'd think an encyclopedia written by people for free would be crap, but it's very very good as long as you verify the information that's important to you. Most of the things I look up on wikipedia are just things I feel like getting a general idea of, and it works great for that, I don't care if it's got an inaccurate birthdate or the year of a famous historical war battle is a decade off. If for some reason that information is extremely important, I would look at a more reliable source. Wikipedia really has information on pretty much everything. It's unbelievable. I remember when wikipedia was new, and had few pages. Funny how things change..And the attitude of people on wikipedia and other pedia's is incredible as well.. if you ever look at an articles discussion.. there are often heated debates about the most minor of details on the most obscure knowledge.. some people are really passionate about writing the wikipedias .. loledit: ARGH. Sorry about the double post. I'm not doing it on purpose, I don't know why it's happening. I think my mouse is clicking twice on everything, maybe it's sticking or something. Is there any way to delete it? I can only see a way to edit it..

Notice from saint-michael:

double post fixed

Edited June 16, 2009 by Saint_Michael (see edit history)

[k_nitin_r 8]

Hi!I think Wikipedia is more accessible, which is what gives it an edge over Microsoft Encarta. Let's say you search for something on Google and it displays a Wikipedia page for you in the search results, you're more likely to click on it. That alone is a pretty good reason for more users to visit Wikipedia instead of Encarta.Apart from that, as an earlier post in this thread mentions, since Microsoft has announced the demise of Encarta, we might as well move to Wikipedia, Brittanica or just about any other encyclopedia.Regards,Nitin Reddy

[HDuffRules 0]

I've come across a topic like this on a different forum before, and it basically ended up with people arguing. One side contended that the information is accurate and reliable, while the other disagreed, because "anyone can change it." And then one of these guys decided to prove his point by going on to Wikipedia and changing a page to wrong information. By the time he had posted the link on the forum for us to see his "edits," someone had already changed it back. I guess what I'm trying to say is, sure there are probably some people who go on Wikipedia and mess with it, but there is a dedicated group of responsible users who will correct it. As for people posting wrong information simply because they don't know its wrong, well if they believe something that is false, it shows that they don't really know too much about that subject. So why would you be editing a Wikipedia article that you are not an expert in? This phenomenon simply doesn't occur.

[abby 0]

Wikipedia is a good source for basic information - and a source for more sources that provide much more reliable, in-depth information. Obviously Wikipedia cannot be relied on as a primary source, and you can't believe everything you read, but it is usually far more current than Encarta is, and from what I have seen, more detail (although admittedly I haven't seen MS Encarta in years because it costs money, whereas there are many free encyclopedias available online).

[onitenki 0]

the popularity of Wikipedia has obviously grown alot over the years it has been around. however many university strictly prohibt citing sources from them due to not accurate information and cant be used as a primary source like abby mentioned. however it could be the gateway to use reference links and incorporate them into student papers.it has interesting facts and great place to go if u need to read about things that you never even knew about.

[abby 0]

On the note of universities prohibiting Wikipedia as a source, most of my professors generally frowned upon citing Wikipedia (but encouraged us to use the links within Wiki as a starting point for research). Despite this, some professors, many of the same who prohibited Wiki as a source, would print out Wiki articles and use them as their lecture notes. They'd never tell us, but I saw a few printouts, and with some professors we'd follow along on our laptops and ALWAYS knew what the next question would be. I'm not sure whether that reflects poorly on my professors or extremely well on Wikipedia ...perhaps a bit of both.

[mm22 0]

I had totally forgotten about Encarta until I read this post... Encarta was one of the first CD-ROM I've got more than 10 years ago, the CD-ROM stopped being readable after sometime and at that time I couldn't afford a CD burner so that was it. After using the internet for a while the need to purchase encyclopedias or similar products became superfluous and I didn't even know there is an online version of Encarta, for sure I have never found anything linked to it. I opened it just now and well seeing the MSN logo puts me off already. With so much information out there there is little point having such a structured and mono-source piece of information. If you want information which is 100% reliable you go and look for it in the appropriate place, for example a library, the website of a company etc. The power of Wikipedia is to express the views and collect the knowledge of the online community around the world, as such it cannot possibly be fully consistent and accurate. But it is a great tool and resource if we know how to use it and we keep a critic eye when reading it.

[iGuest 3]

encarta is for rug munchers . if you wanted to search stuff than you are more likely to find lots more information on the internet.

Edited May 24, 2012 by moderator (see edit history)

[iGuest 3]

encarta is not as good as the internet. it is far seuperior as there are a wider selection of thing to search and would help one get a more definate awnser. encarta is also becoming more outdated so in conclusion eventhough anyone can edit wikipedia etc there is a higher chance of getting a more definate awnster with the aid of government websites.

[xChellesei 0]

I used Encarta some years ago. It's great but there are times that I can't find what I really need. I mean, the information is limited. Yes, it may be much more accurate than Wikipedia but Wikipedia gives a whole lot of information than Encarta. Encarta's content is just from some people in Microsoft. But in Wikipedia, everyone is allowed to share their knowledge about something. If you're going to look for the latest update of a certain topic, then I think Wiki will give it to you since anyone can edit the contents and with just a few minutes, the article is already updated while in Encarta, you'll have to wait for some months or maybe years.I just don't like the fact that some people will bother messing up some pages on Wiki. I have seen some pages with just codes appearing on the page. It's like the content was deleted and the codes are the only ones left. Even if I want to fix it, what can I do... I don't know the things to put there.

[multfilm 0]

I myself like the simplicity of Wikipedia much more than Encarta... however, the reason I am hesitant to use WikiPedia is that it is in a league with Google and other companies... whenever that bill prohibiting advertisements was about to pass, they joined together to do the internet blackout... that seems to be a pretty insinuous way to affect the legislation... Wonder if it's even constitutional.