Do we still need biographies in the age of Wikipedia?

  • Yes, Wikipedia is useful but not the same thing.

    Writing a biography is a serous thing, and Wikipedia entries, though helpful, are not the same thing as a dedicated, well researched and well prepared biography that takes several different aspects of a person's life into account. That's not to say that Wikipedia details aren't accurate, they simply are not an entire picture of a person with the kind of integrity of a serious biography.

  • Of course

    Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia entry on King George III would never be as comprehensive or as good a source as a biography. The encyclopedia isn't bad, it's just not supposed to go into that much depth. Its focus is instead breadth. Wikipedia is a great starting point, but for a solid understanding of the subject, biography or not, you need to crack open a real book. Both have their place, and I'd say are good complements.

  • Yes We Do

    We still need biographies. Wikipedia is not reliable and there are a lot of false facts on that website. Anyone can make an account and change or adjust information on Wikipedia. A biography is much more reliable that Wikipedia. It still amazes me that people read Wikipedia and just assume everything is true.

  • Yes, we still need biographies in the age of Wikipedia

    Although Wikipedia is an awesome source to gain instant access to information regarding a plethora of individuals, it is not the end all be all of information. The idea that one source should replace other sources for information is not a good one. The more sources there are to gain knowledge is the greater the chance the information received is the most accurate.

  • No responses have been submitted.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.