I choose Wikipedia. People might think that wikipedia collaborating a huge amount of information from various sources would result in a larger possibility of false information. I would say such incredible amount of audience can yet contribute to supervise the truth of the information. I believe that the power of public excels that of an expert.
As a matter of fact the reliability of most information can hardly be gauranteed by only one party. Open amendment of the information let correction possible. Even if the information appears to be unlikely to prove true, there are at least two arguments juxtapose in the database. Audience can justify themselves anyway. This further enhance the objectivity of the information because it is not dominant by just one party.
Wikipedia also gives the advantage of richness for the database. Every one has a unique frame of reference of their knowledge. Their collective reference can give rise to plenty of information to the most extent, which a proprietary source can never do.
沒有留言:
張貼留言