Encyclopedia Vs Wikipedia

Reflecting on my experience about encyclopedia and Wikipedia, I would say both resources are great learning tools. However, there are merits and demerits to each types of resource. For example, one of the encyclopedia on my topic is "Gay History and Cultures: An Encyclopedia" written by scholars and experts in the field and edited by George E. Haggerty and co-edited by John Beyon and Douglas Eisner. The good thing about this encyclopedia is that it was compiled and supervised by group of reputed experts and Advisory Board from different reputable universities around the globe. Notable among them are Harvard University, University of Michigan, Toronto University, Yale University, New York Law School to mention a few.

Apart from this, there are numerous contributors from all works of life making the encyclopedia a good source of information serving wide audience, including students, scholars in all fields, and the public, who is interested in gay population the research. Again, the encylopedia above contain the name of the publisher, author's name and bibliography that make it more authentic.

On the other hand, some of the posting on Wikipedia lack credible source since the posting were posted by volunteers with some anonymous name, making it difficult to verify the authentication of posting. Nonetheless, my search topic on Wikipedia was very fruitful. For example, I looked at LGBT history on wiki; it gave me an insight of how my chosen population began, the perspective of people toward them, their movement and struggle and at the end a references, external links, and suggested further readings.

Overall, both sources have their ups and downs. However, the source of any information especially for academic and research purpose should be verified.