***THis post was originally posted in our forum and moved here.***
Hi all, I'm new to this blog and I need some help. For my MSc Dissertation I am doing a comparison of Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica. One of the articles I have examined is Supply and Demand and I am looking for some feedback on my results (see below). Unfortunately unless you are subscribed to Britannica you cannot see the article in question so I realise that the amount of feedback possible may be limited. Thanks in advance, Stuart
Comparison of Supply and Demand Articles
The Wikipedia article on Supply and Demand was taken on 15/07/06 and can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/...d&oldid=63304677, while the Britannica article can be found at http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9070416. This particular topic is one in which Wikipedia�s article is a featured article, a concept we discussed earlier. Supposedly this article is among the best Wikipedia has to offer, and we shall now see if this is the case. The lengths of the featured articles tend to be longer than many of the standard entries, at least the ones we have been selecting to analyse. For this reason the topic chosen is one the author is familiar with, having studied it at degree level. This will make the analysis simpler, quicker, and more reliable to perform.
Comparing the Statistics
Source
Word Count
Spelling Errors
Grammatical or Writing Errors
Misleading or Unclear Statements
Factual Errors
Opinionated Statements
Omissions
Wikipedia
4814
0
5
0
0
0
0
Britannica
675
0
0
0
0
0
0
Once again we see that the Wikipedia article is considerably longer than Britannica�s. This time the article is more than 7 times longer. In all bar the grammatical errors columns, both articles are equal with zero. In the grammatical errors count, Wikipedia has five compared with Britannica�s zero. Some of the errors in Wikipedia are quite obvious and should not be in an article considered the best Wikipedia has to offer. One sentence in the article reads; �If they do not move at all then they will stay in the middle where they already are.� Errors like this are not found in a well written document. These statistics, and Wikipedia�s grammatical errors, are only part of the story though.
Discussion of Scope
Both articles cover the topic of Supply and Demand well, both talking about the supply curve, the demand curve, the equilibrium between the two, elasticity of the supply and demand curves and other applications of elasticity such as income elasticity and cross-elasticity of demand. Wikipedia discusses special cases of the supply and demand curves, the vertical supply curve, other market forms, history of supply and demand theory, and criticism of the current theory, which is not discussed in Britannica. Wikipedia only discusses the applications of the theory and the circular relationship between production, income, and final demand.
The common material between the articles provides a good overview of the subject area. Some of Wikipedia�s extra material is again beyond the scope of the topic. Other market forms has nothing to do with this subject, the history of the theory would be better suited to a separate article, and the alternative theories discussed in the criticism of supply and demand should be at most a link to other articles. Yet again we see that Wikipedia has a greater breadth and depth of scope, but the multiple writers issue again means that there is too much in the article.
Discussion of Overall Quality
We have already noted that there are several grammatical errors in the Wikipedia article. With the exception of these mistakes the quality of writing is very good, as is the quality of writing by Britannica. Both are written in a style similar to most economic textbooks; very formal, un-opinionated and easy to understand. In terms of conciseness, Britannica wins hands down in this instance. The word count alone illustrates both how much longer Wikipedia takes to explain a point, and how much more material is covered. One specific example in this case is a worked example Wikipedia gives entitled �Supply and Demand in a 6 Person Economy�, that is 742 words long and doesn�t contribute much to the entry.
As with previous articles, Wikipedia benefits from the use of subheadings and a table of contents, giving the article the edge in terms of structure and readability. Again Britannica�s article is just the one piece of text with no subheadings to break it up. On the other hand Britannica�s entry is well ordered, to the point and better written. Wikipedia has several errors other than grammatical errors which detract from its overall quality. A couple examples of this are repetition with the definitions of supply and demand and the attempted use of an example which merely throws the word �coffee� into a sentence for no apparent reason. Also towards the end of the article, it starts to sound more disjointed with small points seemingly bolted on just for the sake of adding more content.
A final point we shall consider in this part of our discussion is the use of visual aids by Wikipedia, specifically the use of graphs to explain the concepts of supply and demand, shifts in supply and demand, and elasticity. This is something that the majority of Economics textbooks and learning resources would use to illustrate their discussions, as graphs are an integral part of the field of Economics. It is one area where Wikipedia definitely outperforms Britannica, who do not use visual aids at all. It is a useful feature of Wikipedia, that users when editing articles can also include images as part of their edits.
Conclusion
Below is the table with the final comparisons of the articles on Supply and Demand:
Factor
Winner
Quality of Writing
Britannica
Structure
Britannica
Accuracy
Equal
Breadth of Article
Wikipedia
Depth of Article
Wikipedia
Appropriate Focus
Britannica
The results in the above criteria for this article are the same as with the previous articles on Pel�, although this does not mean we are reaching the same verdict. It is true that with the number of grammatical and structural errors we cannot award Wikipedia with victory in these categories. Neither article has and obvious errors. Once again we see that Wikipedia has a greater breadth and depth of discussion, but again struggles with the appropriateness of the material it covers. Overall Wikipedia�s range and detail of discussion, along with its inclusion of graphs to illustrate points makes it difficult to say which article is better. There is not much to choose between the two, and in this case, although there are in fact great differences between the articles, neither is considered the superior. Additionally the potential of the Wikipedia article is such that it could become easily the better of the two with some editing.
Related Articles
- « US Housing Market Crash Fueling China’s Need for Copper?
- » What is the tax deductible mortgage plan?