For the first analysis used in this assignment, I chose to compare the two Henry Sidgwick biographies; one published by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the other by Wikipedia. I had decided in comparing two articles that would in theory share similar details and facts, it would be easier to analyze their structural and stylistic differences more efficiently. At first glance, it is easy to see the similarities that these two biographies have in common with one another. A standard formatting structure was used for each article; starting with an introduction about Henry Sidgwick, followed by a table of content that broke the article up into different and more specific sections and subsections, and concluded with a list sources used in the article. From a visual stand point, I could tell that they shared a similar sense of formatting and organization. However, first glance was where the similarities stopped.
The information used in each article was similar because of the subject at hand, but the way in which it was presented and published was significantly different. The Wikipedia article was brief, yes, but very straightforward and fact oriented. It was written and read as more of an objective summary on the life and accomplishments of Sidgwick instead of the subjective retelling I found in the Stanford bio. There was little elaboration beyond the basic information being presented; almost underdeveloped in a sense but staying true to the neutrality that Wikipedia expects from its articles. But in the Stanford article, there were countless instances of sweeping and skewed claims that made the facts presented with them seem less credible. Unless I was well read on this man’s biography, I would be lead to believe the bias of his greatness based on the tone and language used in the article. There was more presented than just the facts. There was also a significant difference in tone in each article. It was evident that the Wikipedia biography was written for a more generalized audience of readers; simpler sentence structure and vocabulary that could be recognized by most people. In the Stanford biography, it was clearly intended for a higher level, academic audience. Each read very differently based on these grammatical choices, lending one to be more accessible than the other.
I also noticed that in the Wikipedia article, there were citations needed and an incomplete resources list at the end of the article. So even though it was presented as if these facts were to be taken as truth, there were few sources to back them up. But in the Stanford bio, there was extensive list of primary and secondary sources at the end of the article as well as parenthetical citations throughout the article itself. However this article did not have any information hyper-linked to other articles or resources like the Wikipedia article did. Even if the links were mostly stubs or incomplete articles, there was still the resource and secondary information provided by linking the articles to Sidgwick’s biography. There was also an author credited with the copyright from the Stanford article, Baron Schultz. It’s not in the nature of Wikipedia to have one author given all the credit for writing an article, as it promotes a collaborative venue of publishing with more than one author and editor for every article. There was also no use of any images or illustrations in the Stanford article and only the one portrait of Sidgwick was used in the Wikipedia biography. I don’t think images would play a huge part in deciding which article should be used in a research situation but it was another difference I noticed.
I would have to say that at the end of my analysis, I could see pros and cons to using either of these biographies in a research project. I feel as though both are incomplete by my standards as to what I would consider using as a good source; each one offering and lacking elements I look for when considering whether an article is credible or not. I might consider the extended source list in my research offered in the Stanford article considering that the Wikipedia article required citations. But the concise neutrality of the Wikipedia article is something I look for in research projects, so in that sense I might be more inclined to follow up those facts rather than trust the subjective bias the other biography presents. Neither would be my first choice as sources for research but given the constraints of each, I think these biographies offer different aspects of a respectable article.
With Wikipedia’s criteria for what is looked for and required of their articles, I chose to analyze the featured article on Justine Timberlake’s hit single “Cry Me a River”. I thought it exemplified the media requirement for Wikipedia articles the most effectively. Within the article, there were images from the cover of the single, still shots from his music video, and of the Grammy Timberlake won for the record. It also incorporated a clip of the single as an audio addition to the article and under the external links, offered the lyrics and official music video. It was the only one of the articles that I looked at the incorporated more than just an image, but included the video and audio elements as well. I think an aspect of Featured Article Criteria that could be improved for this article would be its length overall. I think each section had merit in including all of the details and facts that it did, but as a whole article, there were times when it became too lengthy. The facts were interesting and all, but it wasn’t always necessary to include all of them. The article would still function as a successful piece if some of them were omitted within the text and perhaps only listed as external links or other resources for further reading. While I agree it adhered to the main topic, I think the use of summary style could be improved.
Wikipedia presents a very unique set of constituents and constraints to be met by each of its articles. Especially in comparing this platform to that of another encyclopedia as well as analyzing an article that they hold to be one of their best, it is becoming easier to identify markers that characterize Wikipedia and the criteria it stands for.
