The main parts in this article where hard to derive at first; then they became evident. It talks about how Wikipedia is almost like a community and I agree. It has a hierarchy along with rules and regulators. They also discuss the lead up in history of encyclopedias. Another of its main points is that peoples knowledge is more concise when pooled together, but at the same time it is very difficult to get some people to agree. This article also bring up the point that anything man made is bound to have flaws and corruption. People will change articles on themselves to make themselves seem more appealing. People will also change other peoples articles as jokes or out of dislike. This bring up another point that people naturally like to play joke or mess around with others. Overall we are shown a lot about human nature and they way we work together.

I thought this part of the article was humorous and help prove a great point. “Even Wales has been caught airbrushing his Wikipedia entry--- eighteen times in the past year.” I thought this was just great it shows exactly why a human run organization can’t be flawless. Even the creator is driven by its own wants and desires and throws away the care for the absolute truth.

I think that ease of use is very important in a encyclopedia. So i would compare how difficult it was to visually direct yourself while using it. They are made of different things, Wikipedia is online it has no actual presents while Britannica is in volumes of books. This give Britannica a very reflective look. Viscerally Britannica also is better it is a bright red. We also have think how the content was created. Wikipedia was created by many people, which brings up the problem of arguments and the fact that any one can publish something. While Britannica was created by a few scholars so it could be subject to unchanged bias and opinion. Then there is the fact that Wikipedia is free and I am sure that they are not giving out free 32 volume
Britannicas.