User:RM395/Course/Encyclopedia comparisons/Brodmont
Comparison of Two Encyclopedia Articles on Japheth
[edit]By --Brodmont (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I chose to compare the articles on Japheth in Wikipedia and in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE, Ed. Geoffrey W. Bromley, Vol. 2, page 967, 1982). Japheth is one of the Biblical patriarchs and one of the three sons of Noah according to the Bible account. I chose this topic because of my familiarity with the Bible Book of Genesis and my interest in ancient history and historical linguistics. I'm particularly interested in Japheth as the purported progenitor of the Indo-European peoples and mentions of him in extra-Biblical sources.
Compositional comparisons between the two articles
[edit]The Wikipedia article is about 1,400 words. The ISBE article is shorter, at about 420 words. On the surface of it, this would make the Wikipedia article appear to be more in-depth.
The ISBE article appears in one long text block broken into three paragraphs. The Wikipedia article has eight sub-heads, not counting the standard headers like “See also” and “Notes”; it contains 18 paragraphs. The Wikipedia article has an information box and a chart holding key data about Japheth. These compositional differences in themselves make the Wikipedia article more usable and readable, as it is easier to scan the article and find what you're looking for.
The ISBE entry has no illustrations, whereas the Wikipedia entry has two maps and an image of Japheth from a 16th-century engraving. Again, these visual features make the Wikipedia article more interesting and informative.
Authorship
[edit]The authors listed for the ISBE article on Japheth are Theophilus Goldridge Pinches, a noted Assyriologist, of University College London and the British Museum; and R. K. Harrison (Roland K. Harrison), a Biblical scholar, of Wycliffe College in Ontario.
The Wikipedia article shows 286 authors. Out of those, about 110 were anonymous editors who made anywhere from one to 11 edits. Registered users made anywhere from one to 38 edits. As is the case with many Wikipedia editors, their User pages usually don't identify them. Some do, however, and some of those have reasonable academic credentials, such as linguist and historian Andrew Dalby; and anthropologist Steven Rubenstein. However, most registered users contributing to the Wikipedia Japheth article are working under user profiles that don't reveal their academic credentials.
Overall then, a good argument can be made that the ISBE article can lay claim to more authoritative authorship. However, Wikipedia has a way of self-organizing to create reasonably good content, so I couldn't say definitely that the uncertain authorship for this article makes it inferior.
The content itself
[edit]Both articles cover the expected territory having to do with Japheth's identity in the Biblical narrative and his connection with various branches of the human family in ancient times. The Wikipedia article goes into more detail on ethnic legends connecting various nations to Japheth and his correlations with various deities from different religious traditions. With regard to this latter point, the ISBE entry only makes mention of the correlation between Japheth and the Greek titan Iapetus, whereas the Wikipedia article also mentions his connection to the Roman god Jupiter and the Indian deities Dyaus Pitar and Prajapati.
The Wikipedia article lists a number of references and external links, whereas ISBE does not refer the user to any resources outside of the encyclopedia. To me, this is an argument for the superiority of the Wikipedia article, as it points the reader to greater resources for investigation.
Overall evaluation
[edit]Overall, I would have to evaluate the ISBE article on Japheth as more authoritative. While it has many fewer authors than the Wikipedia article, its two authors are specialists in the subject area, whereas it is difficult to evaluate the credentials of more than a few of the Wikipedia contributors.
This question of reliability urges a caveat on the Wikipedia reader: “Trust, but verify,” as the Russian proverb says.
Although I raise this question about credibility, I nonetheless prefer the Wikipedia article on Japheth to the one in ISBE. It's more usable because of the layout features mentioned previously. Because it is web-based, it offers the advantage of quick access to references and other relevant Wikipedia articles via hyperlink.
Also, the Wikipedia article isn't perfect but it is pretty good and has the potential to get better through joint effort by editors. And I like the idea that I can contribute as a scholar with interest in the topic and concern for accuracy and good sourcing.
Submitted by --Brodmont (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)