Final Draft

Professor Meisner
English 105.001
8 March 2007
Wikipedia Defines Anarchism
Introduction
In today’s society, gossip is exchanged within people’s conversations daily. Among friends, business workers and, of course, in entertainment we crave for fleshy pieces of information that excite us to help create discussion. But then again no statement is set in stone. It is almost impossible to define anything without years of historic or scientific research and even then, what is proven, is questioned. There seems to be an aware sign attached to every source of information these days. Precautions are taken and suspicion arises when people read new information or question what they believe to already know. It is easy for an old dictionary or encyclopedia to become an artifact. Jim Giles wrote an article where a comparison was done between an online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, and an older source, the Encyclopedia of Britannica. The results showed that the online source, which is updated frequently, showed more mistakes and errors than in the elderly source. However, an information scientist at the University of Illinois, Michael Twidale, reported that people still find it “shocking to see how many errors there are in Britannica” (Giles). So no source is ever completely accurate but it is the authors and editors duty to strive for that perfection, to educate the public. Wikipedia does this, or, at least they try to. This encyclopedia is on the world wide web and can be accessed by anyone. It can be read and edited by the public and common people. It provides definitions that are updated for new results, it educates, and it gives a lot of gossip.
Wikipedia is not only creating chat forums within its site but there is much to talk about its use in general. On The Colbert Report, a television show, host Stephen Colbert decided to put Wikipedia to the test. It was brought to the public’s attention that Wikipedia is free, easy to use, and easy to change. This means that anyone with a different opinion or thought on a subject is allowed to add to a definition. Colbert realized that if enough people change the definition of a certain word a new meaning will evolve. This is what creates so much concern about the site; what is true and what is gossip? Stacy Schiff, a writer from The New Yorker comments on the site, “Nothing about high-minded collaboration guarantees accuracy, and open editing invites abuse” (“Know It All”, 4). So, how truthful are the definitions of this encyclopedia? Is it really worth using for credible information? What makes other sources, such as books, any more sincere and trustworthy? To check if Wikipedia’s definitions are credible I have set out to compare and contrast the information to other sources. By checking the facts presented in the definition of anarchism, I will see if Wikipedia is a reliable site for academic use or even personal indulgence.
Literature Review:
Wikipedia’s entry is long and filled with historical facts on the first anarchists and the different types of anarchism. It never analyzes anarchism as one definition, instead it drifts off into explaining the multiple views history has taken on this word. In fact in the beginning of the entry the writer states that “there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold,” and that the entry will try to characterize the different varieties and traditions of anarchism (Anarchism, Wikipedia). They do provide the reader with one simple definition which combines the thoughts that most anarchist believe. Wikipedia writes, anarchism is “a political philosophy or group of doctrines and attitudes centered on rejection of any form of compulsory government and supporting its elimination” (Anarchism). First, to test this simple definition I took two other dictionaries. One online, Dictionary.com, and the other a book, the Webster’s New World Dictionary. Dictionary.com defines anarchism as “a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.” Webster’s definition is “the theory that all forms of government interfere unjustly with individual liberty.” So far, my consensus was that anarchism is an idea, it is the thought of revolting against the government to obtain liberty. There does not seem to be much difference between the internet and any other source written by professional editors.
In 1962, George Woodcock wrote a book explaining his thought on the word anarchism. This source seems respectable since the author examined years of history on anarchism and created a book defining its purpose. The difference is Woodcock never defines the word in just a single sentence where as Wikipedia formulates a typical conception that most anarchist would agree on. This is fair when creating a meaning for a word, to look at all opposing sides and assemble the similarities, but Woodcock does more than this. He surpasses the simple thought of rejection of government and explains anarchism as an idea or an action. This noun begins to take on the complexity of a religion by which man abides. Woodcock writes that “its [anarchism] ultimate aim is always social change, its present attitude is always one of social condemnation…its method is always that of social rebellion” (9). He begins to contradict the dictionary definitions by saying that “mere unthinking revolt does not make an anarchist, nor does a philosophical or religious rejection of earthly power” (9). Since a form of action must appear this leaves Woodcock to explain the misconstruction that most people have of anarchists. From the untamed, public displays of punks throughout the late 1970’s and as portrayed in movies, anarchists are seen as destructive people. Woodcock writes that they are partly responsible for this assumption thus creating the innuendo of the word. The original view of anarchism was to fix and help society. Instead through their destructive actions, “their plans of reconstruction have been oversimplified and unconvincing” (13). So far the simple definition on Wikipedia is not incorrect but misses out on the depth and, surprisingly, recent information. Even though Wikipedia does not notify the readers about the punks and anarchist movement in the 1970’s it does supply some history of the individualists who fought for anarchism and their philosophy on the matter. Peter Kropotkin, William Godwin, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, whom are all historians on the subject, are mentioned in both the book and the website. Since the definition on the website is not four hundred pages long, like the book, it cannot contain as much information but can inform the reader on all the topics surrounding it. In fact the website links all the names to their own pages of definitions. In a sense Wikipedia gives a good overview of the word and its history.
Wikipedia does give the origin of the word in the beginning paragraph. Anarchism is derived from the greek avapxia which means “without a ruler.” Both Wikipedia and
Woodcock inform the viewer of this and have a similar definition to support it. Wikipedia
writes, “in its most general meaning [anarchism], is the belief that all forms of rulership are undesirable and should be abolished.” Woodcock states, “thus anarchy itself can clearly be used in a general context to mean…the positive condition of being unruled because rule is unnecessary for the presentation of order” (10). In fact both are close in diction as well; rulership is either undesirable or unnecessary. So far, Wikipedia does not have any information which it can not be held as untruthful.
I was shocked to read that William Godwin, a philosopher on anarchism, was married to Marry Wollstonecraft and had a daughter named Mary Shelley, the author of Frankenstein (Wikipedia). I checked these facts by reading into Woodcock’s book and found not only was this true but their daughter eloped with Percy Shelley, a poet who was a follower of Godwin’s ideas. After looking up William Godwin on Wikipedia, I did not find much on Percy Shelley being a disciple to Godwin or eloping with his daughter. More information is collected and presented in Woodcock’s book than what is shown on the one entry of Wikipedia. Of course, this information is not completely relevant to the definition of anarchism yet both sources incorporate it. Nevertheless, Wikipedia’s information, once again, is not wrong but less wholesome.
Another source which I tested the entry against was the book Anarchism: Nomos XIX. It is written by several professors who have studied Philosophy and Political Science. Due to their degrees in these subjects this seems to be a trustworthy source. I was particularly interested in John P. Clark’s entry of What is Anarchism when he begins to question George Woodcock’s definition of the word. Not only does he attack Woodcock, but points out “simple definitions (Clark, 4)” written by Kropotkin, Proudhon, and Bakunin, all who are contributors to explaining anarchism. However, out of all the
writers, he gives most credit to Woodcock for attempting to define the three characteristics of anarchism, “a doctrine which poses a criticism of existing society; a view of desirable future society; and means of passing from one to the other” (Clark, 6). Clark goes on to write that “any definition which reduces anarchism to a single dimension, such as its critical element, must be judged seriously inadequate” (6). This would include Wikipedia’s entry on the word anarchism since they narrow the definition to base anarchism on just attitudes surrounding the rejection of government.
After explaining what anarchism is not, Clark attempts to define the word himself. His definition is much more in depth and extensive. “There are four elements to this proposed definition,” Clark writes, “…(1) a view of an ideal, no coercive, nonauthoritarian society; (2) a criticism of existing society and its institutions…(3) a view of human nature that justifies the hope for significant progress toward the ideal; and (4) a strategy for change, involving immediate institutions of no coercive, nonauthoritarian, and decentralist alternatives” (13). His definition embodies everything that previous philosophers have said, but he combines them all to make more than just a simple definition. Clark writes this in hope to clarify the word anarchism, which is what any dictionary or encyclopedia is trying to do.
Methods
I set out to compare Wikipedia to other definitions by using dictionaries and books. First, I collected all the definitions from the dictionaries or books and compared them to Wikipedia’s. After reading more of the entry on Wikipedia.com, I searched for that similar information in the books.
Results
I was extremely shocked to find that Wikipedia’s entry was not wrong or even brief. It was informing and correct. However, the books written by philosophers were much more interesting, capturing the writer’s excitement and extreme curiosity in the subject. They were far more inclusive and educating.
Discussion
So, what is Wikipedia good for? Since all the information matched up rather well, my opinion on the website has changed slightly. It is a fast way to obtain information, but just because one definition matches up does not mean all the others will too. Wikipedia is also challenging the older way of obtaining facts. In Schiff’s article a user named William Connolley believes that the site “gives no privilege to those who know what they’re talking about” (“Know It All”, 26). Many philosophers and editors who have worked for years researching and specializing to write books and articles are being over looked by the quicker source of information- the World Wide Web. Credit is not being given where it should. Overall, Wikipedia is as good as any other cheat sheet. It summarizes, picks out key points and explains it as best as it can to people who will not go out to obtain the original copy. A book can contain more educated thoughts in 300 or 400 pages than a website can. Maybe it is not as fast but it is a safer bet. Wikipedia seems like a chat room, a place where people can collaborate and discuss opinions or thoughts on words and events. For this reason it is acceptable since discussing or arguing a point for the better good of a word is educating and informing. For now it should not be used as a credible source because (1) it may not be true and (2) it is far more educating to actually read a book by a philosopher who argues his or her point in order to be published.




Works Cited

“ Anarchism.” Webster’s New World Dictionary and Thesaurus. 2nd ed. 2002.
“Anarchism.” Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 18 Feb. 2007. .
“Anarchism.” Wikipedia.com. 15 Feb. 2007.
.
Clark, John, P. “What is Anarchism?” Anarchism: Nomos XIX. J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds. New York: New York University Press, 1978. 3-23.
Giles, Jim. “Internet Encyclopedias Go Head to Head.” 28 March 2006.

Schiff, Stacy. “Know It All.” The New Yorker. 24 July 2006. 31 July 2006 .
Woodcock. George. Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. Ohio: The World Publishing Company, 1962. 9-60.

Disconnecting

For this assignment we were suppose to disconnect from technology as much as we could. I chose to check my email once a day, check my phone once a day, not IM anyone, and not use word processor. To me, this task was easy. The only reason I ever check my email is incase of cancelled classes or changed meeting times. In fact I never use my email when I'm not at college because it is a hassle, especially when you do not have fast internet connection. For the five days we performed these rituals, I never even looked at my phone. I left it in my dorm and found that I really didn't need it. I'm someone who likes to talk to people face to face so I didn't even get any phone calls all week. As for IMing, I do not even have it downloaded on my computer. Once again, talking to people over a screen does not seem very personal to me. From February 26 to Wednesday 28, I was sick and found myself lying in bed for most of the time. This made it really easy to disconnect. I never used the internet and did not have too much homework so Word Processor was easy to stay away from. Honestly, I did not learn much from this assignment. It was easy and I have done it before. I would much rather spend my time reading, practicing my hobbies, and talking to people face to face than be sitting at my desk glaring at the computer screen. Maybe it is just my lifestyle but I do not think it is too hard to stay away from the technology that we have incorporated into our lives. Obviously, in the 1800's and before then, humans have survived on less technology. What strikes me as difficult is if we had to take away a washing machine and do our laundry with our hands. Or how about the T.V., we would have to go out to buy the newspaper everyday for local news. I already do not own a microwave or ever use my dryer but what if electricity was taken away from us. I believe our lives would be much more active and stenuous. Our daily chores would change and we would be waking up at early hours to catch more light. We would live more like farmers and by what I know, they live a pretty healthy lifestyle since they do not sit around on a couch watching T.V. or in a chair staring at a computer.

Firts Draft!

Wikipedia defines Anarchism:
Is it True or Truthy?
Introduction:
Angry mobs of punks who destroy public and private property to show their angst against the government is a typical conception of anarchists. Thanks to Stephen Colbert, who decided to change data by updating Wikipedia.com with false accusations, this assumption can become a fact. On The Colbert Report, a television show, host Stephen Colbert decided to put Wikipedia to the test. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia which can be written and updated by the common people. It is free, easy to use, and easy to change. This means that anyone with a different opinion or thought on a subject is allowed to add to the definition. Colbert realized that if enough people change the definition of a certain word a new meaning will evolve. Many viewers have discretions about the site. Stacy Schiff, a writer at the New York Times writes, “Nothing about high-minded collaboration guarantees accuracy, and open editing invites abuse” (“Know It All”, 4). Jim Giles wrote an article announcing that Wikipedia has been compared to the Encyclopedia of Britannica and more errors were located in the Wikipedia. However, Michael Twidale thought people still find it “shocking to see how many errors there are in Britannica” (Giles). So how truthful are the definitions of this encyclopedia? Is it really worth using for credible information. What makes other sources, such as books, any more sincere and trustworthy? To check if Wikipedia’s definitions are misconceiving I have set out to compare and contrast the information to other sources. By checking the facts presented in the definition of anarchism I will see if Wikipedia is a reliable site for academic use or even personal indulgence.
Literature Review:
Wikipedia has many subtopics and links which help define a word and its history. For the word anarchism, Wikipedia has the origins of the word, the first anarchists and their perception of the meaning, and descriptions of the different kinds of anarchism. The first definition that appears under the word anarchism is “a political philosophy or group of doctrines and attitudes centered on rejection of any form of compulsory government and supporting its elimination”(Wikipedia.com).To test this simple definition I took two other dictionaries. One online, Dictionary.com, and the other a well-known book, the Webster’s New World Dictionary. Dictionary.com defined anarchism as “a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.” Webster’s definition is “the theory that all forms of government interfere unjustly with individual liberty.” So far my consensus was that anarchism is an idea; the thought of revolting against the government to obtain liberty. There did not seem to be much difference between the internet and a published book written by professional editors.
In 1962 George Woodcock wrote a whole book explaining his thought on the word anarchism. This source seems respectable due to the years of research that this historian put into writing pages defining one word. Of course he never defines the word in just a single sentence but it began to take on a new meaning. The history and thoughts that accumulated for the word are so in depth that defining it seemed impossible. Anarchism began to appear as more than just an idea, it was almost a religion which man abides to.
Woodcock writes that “its [anarchism] ultimate aim is always social change, its present attitude is always one of social condemnation…its method is always that of social rebellion” (9). He begins to contradict the dictionary definitions by saying that “mere unthinking revolt does not make an anarchist, nor does a philosophical or religious rejection of earthly power” (9). Woodcock also brings up the misconstruction that most people have of anarchists. As I stated in the beginning, anarchists are seen as destructive people and Woodcock writes that they are partly responsible for that assumption. This is where the innuendo of the word appears. The original view of anarchism was to fix and help society. Instead through their destructive actions, “their plans of reconstruction have been oversimplified and unconvincing” (13). So far the definition on Wikipedia does not seem to be missing out on much. It compares relatively well except that it may not go as in-depth to try and explore the exact definition. However, Wikipedia does touch on every subject such as the individualists who fought for anarchism or their philosophy on the matter. Peter Kropotkin, William Godwin, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, whom are all historians on the subject, are mentioned in both the book and the website. Since the definition on the website is not four hundred pages long, like the book, it cannot contain as much information but can inform the reader on all the topics surrounding it. In fact the website links all the names to their own pages of definitions. In a sense Wikipedia gives a good overview of the word and its history.
Wikipedia does give the origin of the word in the beginning paragraph. Anarchism is derived from the greek avapxia which means “without a ruler.” Both Wikipedia and Woodcock inform the viewer of this and have a similar definition to back it up. Wikipedia writes, “in its most general meaning [anarchism], is the belief that all forms of rulership are undesirable and should be abolished.” Woodcock states, “thus anarchy itself can clearly be used in a general context to mean…the positive condition of being unruled because rule is unnecessary for the presentation of order” (10). In fact both are close in diction as well; rulership is either undesirable or unnecessary. So far Wikipedia does not have any information which it can not be held as untruthful.
I was shocked to read that William Godwin, a philosopher on anarchism, was married to Marry Wollstonecraft and had a daughter named Mary Shelley, the author of Frankenstein (Wikipedia). I checked these facts by reading into Woodcock’s book and found not only was this true but their daughter eloped with Percy Shelley, a poet who was a follower of Godwin’s ideas. After looking up William Godwin on Wikipedia I did not find much on Percy Shelley being a disciple to Godwin or eloping with his daughter. Maybe after a few more clicked links the reader may find this information but it seems much easier to simply obtain a copy of Woodcock’s book. Rather than search through entries on Wikipedia all the information and more can be found by reading a hard copy of facts.
Another Source which I tested the entry against was the book Anarchism: Nomos XIX. It is written by several professors who have studied Philosophy and Political Science. Their degrees in these special regions make them trustworthy advocates. I was particularly interested in John P. Clark’s entry of What is Anarchism when he begins to question George Woodcock’s definition of the word. Not only does he attack Woodcock but points out “simple definitions (Clark, 4)” written by Kropotkin, Proudhon, and Bakunin, all who are contributors to explaining anarchism. However, out of all the writers he gives most credit to Woodcock for attempting to define the three characteristics of anarchism, “a doctrine which poses a criticism of existing society; a view of desirable future society; and means of passing from one to the other” (Clark, 6). Clark goes on to write that “any definition which reduces anarchism to a single dimension, such as its critical element, must be judged seriously inadequate” (6). This would include Wikipedia’s entry on the word anarchism.
After explaining what anarchism is not, Clark attempts to define the word himself. His definition is much more in depth and extensive. “There are four elements to this proposed definition,” Clark writes, “…(1) a view of an ideal, no coercive, nonauthoritarian society; (2) a criticism of existing society and its institutions…(3) a view of human nature that justifies the hope for significant progress toward the ideal; and (4) a strategy for change, involving immediate institutions of no coercive, nonauthoritarian, and decentralist alternatives” (13). His definition embodies everything that previous philosophers have said but he combines them all to make more than just a simple definition. Clark writes this in hope to clarify the word anarchism which is what any dictionary or encyclopedia is trying to do.
Methods:
I set out to compare Wikipedia to other definitions by using dictionaries and books. First, I collected all the definitions which the dictionaries or books contained and compared them to Wikipedia’s. After reading more of the entry on Wikipedia.com I searched for that similar information in the books.
Results:
I was extremely shocked to find that Wikipedia’s entry was not wrong or even brief. It was informing and correct. However, the books written by philosophers were much more interesting, capturing the writer’s excitement and extreme curiosity in the subject. They were far more inclusive and educating.
Discussion:
So what is Wikipedia good for? Since all the information matched up rather well, my opinion on the website has changed slightly. It is a fast way to obtain information but just because one defintion matches up does not mean all the others will too. In Schiff’s article a user named William Connolley believes that the site “gives no privilege to those who know what they’re talking about” (“Know It All”, 26). Many philosophers and editors who have worked for years researching and specializing to write books and articles are being over looked by the quicker source of information- the World Wide Web. Overall, Wikipedia is as good as any other cheat sheet. It summarizes, picks out key points and explains it as best as it can to people who will not go out to obtain the original copy. A book can contain more educated thoughts in 300 or 400 pages than a website can. Maybe it is not as fast but it is a safer bet. Wikipedia seems like a chat room, a place where people can collaborate and discuss opinions or thoughts on words and events. For now it should not be used as a credible source because (1) it may not be true and (2) it is far more educating to actually read a book by a philosopher who argues his or her point in order to be published.

Works Cited
“Anarchism.” Webster’s New World Dictionary and Thesaurus. 2nd ed. 2002.
“Anarchism.” Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 18 Feb. 2007. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchism>.
“Anarchism.” Wikipedia.com. 15 Feb. 2007.
Clark, John, P. “What is Anarchism?” Anarchism: Nomos XIX. J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds. New York: New York University Press, 1978. 3-23.
Giles, Jim. “Internet Encyclopedias Go Head to Head.” 28 March 2006.
Schiff, Stacy. “Know It All.” The New Yorker. 24 July 2006. 31 July 2006 .
Woodcock. George. Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. Ohio: The World Publishing Company, 1962. 9-60.

Wikipedia draft and outline

One page Draft:

An online encyclopedia seems like an easier way of looking up definitions without the hassle of lugging around a five or ten pound book. Not only does the site, Wikipedia.org, explain words and events but will redirect the viewer to new or related subjects in seconds. The controversy appears when it must be decided who will write all this information not to mention update it. Wikipedia has allowed anyone who is willing to spend their time defining and updating words to access the site and do so. The debate is how accurate these definitions are and if should they be taken seriously. When searching for a word to be defined by Wikipedia, I knew I wanted something contoversial or relatively hard to explain. I figured this would test Wikipedia’s accuracy and efficiency. At first the word anarchism seemed well-known for it’s general idea but vague when it comes to specifics. After a little research it became apparent that defining the word has been arguable since the 1960’s. George Woodcock has defined the word in his book Anarchism which has repeatedly been used in other published books. It became questionable when the book Anarchism: Nomos XIX suggests Woodcock’s definition is inadequate and an understatement. This made me consider how Wikipedia would define anarchism. Would it be one-dimensional, discreet, opinionated, or even accurate? At first Wikipedia defines anarchism in one sentence but later writes how there are a variety of types of anarchism which may differ in definition or thought. It is being precautious but how will this compare to other dictionaries or encyclopedias? How about published books with historians and theorists who have studied anarchism and tried to define it for years.

Outline:

Hypothesis: Wikipedia’s definition of anarchism: How much of it is factual and is it a reliable source for information?
I. Wikipedia’s sub topics
A. The origin of the word
B. Schools of anarchist thought
C. Individualist anarchism in the
II. Wikipedia’s definition compared to other dictionaries
A. Dictionary.com’s definition; another online resource
B. Webster’s definition; a well-known published book
C. Encyclopedia’s definition; an older source of information
III. Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements by George Woodcock
A. Definition
B. Differences and/or similarities
C. Why this is an authoritative source compared to Wikipedia
IV. Anarchism: Nomos XIX
A. Definition
B. Differences and/or similarities
C. Why this is an authoritative source compared to Wikipedia
V. Wikipedia as a source
A. Author of the entry
B. Diction used
C. Importance of all the information
Conclusion: How does Wikipedia’s definition compare to outside sources? Does the information stand as a reliable source for academic writing?

Schiff and Giles Wikipedia Articles

I, personally, have never used Wikipedia as a reference when researching or defining words. In fact, I don’t believe I ever knew what Wikipedia was until last semester when I was assigned to write a definition paper. The professor specifically warned us about using dictionary.com or Wikipedia since they aren’t reliable sources of information. First of all, the internet has never seemed trustworthy in my eyes but I was extremely shocked to hear that the website could be updated by anyone and that words are constantly being defined by common people. After reading Stacy Schiff’s article about Wikipedia and its origin I trusted the website even less. Schiff begins her article describing Wikipedia, its purpose, its popularity, and its flaws (especially compared to the encyclopedia of Britannica). Its purpose is to give people a free encyclopedia which is written and read in “their own language.” As for its popularity, the website is the seventeenth most visited website and exists in over 200 languages. It is frightening to know that people actually spend that much time on their computer fixing and posting definitions. Schiff also describes the founder of the site, Jimmy Wales, who’s history is making money by dabbling with pornography. Maybe it is wrong to judge but how much does this man really care about educating people for the greater good. He says the “key thing is getting it write,” whether it’s written by teenagers or professors. There are no rules or guidelines on what should be posted which leads to its mistakes. Wikipedia was made to correct the old encyclopedia but instead has just made it worst. Definitions are abused so much that the site has to regulate police officers called admins, who check for violations. This seems more like a job than a privilege to watch over the site almost 24/7 checking for recent updates that are absurd. In the end Wikipedia seems to be a lot of gossip. Apparently there are longer entries on celebrities than there are on historical people and events. It’s a place to have an argument or conversation with someone, reasoning over what, when, and where something happened or their personal view on a subject matter. Britannica may have mistakes written in it but those mistakes are always going to be there since it has a physical form. In fact those mistakes make up history; they aren’t erased the minute inadequate information supplied. For example, Schiff explains that the encyclopedia wrote the definition for woman as “the female of man,” which seems sexist but then again is a true part of history. Men were seen as the higher form of being and this “wrong” information only helps support a past theory. We can learn from these mistakes which are permanently placed in physical objects.
Jim Giles also writes about Wikipedia and its misinformed information compared to the Encyclopedia of Britannica. Studies have shown that Wikipedia has four mistakes in an entry while Britannica holds three. Giles writes that Wales is planning on setting a ‘stable’ version of entries when he feels that the definition has reached its potency. Maybe then Wikipedia will have a higher quality of information but some people will always remain old-fashioned believing that a book, with an author and publisher, gives a much more precise and accurate definition.
Wikipedia does give recent and updated information quicker than any other source but it’s not as reliable as something proven by experts. It may be easier to understand and more collective with different views and opinions. The entries are thought provoking, which leave room for discussion rather than solid facts.

Defining Conversation

A conversing; informal talk is the definition of "conversation" that Webster's New World Dictionary and Thesaurus published in their book. Right away I was struck by the word "informal." Informal is casual and relaxed which is usually tied with lingo or slang words. For the past few decades the issue of using such language has been thought to be unintellectual or sometimes offensive. Parents hate when their kids speak in ways they do not understand and new words are constantly arising that butcher the english language. Such as "cool" or "sucks", two words commonly used that have taken on a completley different meaning. "Totally" and Definatley" have been shortened to "tot" and "def." The old way of speaking seems to be too wordy and long for an impatient young American teenager to say in this day and age. But does this really matter? As long as they are speaking to another human being who can understand what is being said than aren't they holding a conversation? The definition of conversation is very broad. It does not have to mean an intimate or deeeply intuned session with another person, it just has to be talk. Conversation needs to be between two or more people who are able to respond. It needs to be active and both sides have to be engaged.
Sometimes it's hard to distinguish the difference between conversation and communication. Recently I took a class where African drummers speak to each other with rythms and tell each other what is happening around them without using words. Would this classify as a conversation since both people are actively responding? What about artists? When they make art as a form of expression they are speaking to their veiwers. Sometimes they invoke their veiwers who in response create work that becomes a reflection. Yet in both these cases their is a slight unassurance of what the other person is saying. The drummers could be misinterperting one another or the artist may never know exactly what is really being expressed. Conversation is a way of communicating but a true conversation must be clearly understood by another who responds immediatley.