It's hard to make a choice but I probably choose wikipedia.
In fact, I don't use it very often because I thought it's a really complex and boring and endless job for me to check every information I got from it is respectable or reliable.But I do believe that everyone who is willing to contribute the society should have the chance to join in editing encyclopaedia. This, I think, can be called democracy. Though democracy is not always perfect in many ways, this kind of program still helped to enlarge our knowledge and avoid prejudise in some point.
In the article: Will Wikipedia Mean the End Of Traditional Encyclopaedias? Dale Hoiberg,senior vice president and editor in chief of Encyclopeadia Brittanica,quoted Lewis Mumford's opinion "information could bring about a state of intellectual enervation and depletionhardly to be distinguished from massive ignorance",reminded us that the large amount of information can't all be useful and can never prove how we smart. Thus,he suggested taht the troditional encyclopaedia which based on scholars and experts.And here is the question: how to be professor in one field? Yes,they should at least got master degress to prove taht one had studied for a long time. And how about one that do dedicated a lot without any degree? Can't he/she help to perfect encyclopaedia? A media is an unnoticeable guidance of the way we see and treat the world.Encyclopaedia Brittanica stands for the old printing world and Wikipedia seems presants for the digital age and it is developing obviously.Let's see and waite for its "golen age"~
P.S. I'm not saying that troditional encyclopaedia is meaningless anymore and should go to grave forever. Like the relationship between Inernet and newspapers,or television, I don't think they are confrontation but complementary, or, just different choices.
P.P.S.As for the media of paper and television, I strongly recommend "Amusing Oureselves to Death",by Neil Postman.
没有评论:
发表评论