User:EnterLibaryGirl/sandbox

I chose these topics based on personal interest and some of my own background. As a B.A. in Anthropology, my focus is primarily on culture and sub-culture. I chose large general topics in the hope that I would find plenty of information of each one. I also picked each topic with some prior knowledge. I tried to focus on things that have interested me in the past and that I would like to know more about as well as using my own ancestral background. Finding sources was an interesting experience in terms of what I could find on Wikipedia and what I could find on more academic sites. While I found at least some information on all of my topics in both Wikipedia and the more academic based encyclopedias, I found Wikipedia had more general information to give and more variety. For my first topic, Yakuza, I was surprised at how hard a time I had finding information on the academic encyclopedias; even after I found some information there was only a short paragraph and not much else. I think Wikipedia, is made for a wider audience and has more people contributing from all over the world than the academic encyclopedias do. With the topic Yakuza, Wikipedia was able to give me wealth of information and furthering reading suggestions whereas, the academic encyclopedias seemed to be more Western based and only gave me more information and furthering reading suggestions when I was looking at Canadian and British topics. The academic encyclopedias are definitely more specialized in terms of material they offer, though I did enjoy the furthering reading suggestions from other academic journals. Wikipedia is a great jumping off point, far better in some ways than the academic encyclopedias because there is less bias towards the Western world and more information on seemingly obscure topics. I do think if someone is doing a research paper they may want to look at both Wikipedia and academic encyclopedias as sources. To further their understanding of the topic and get more information and suggestions for furthering reading.

References

"Yakuza." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 21 Sept. 2012.

"Yakuza." Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Brittanica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopedia Brittanica Inc., 2012. Web. 21 Sept. 2012.

"Picts." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 22 Sept. 2012.

"Picts." The Oxford Companion to British History. Encyclopedia.com, 2002. 29 Sept. 2012.

"Stonehenge." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 22 Sept. 2012.

"Stonehenge." Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Brittanica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopedia Brittanica Inc., 2012. Web. 22 Sept. 2012.

"Huguenots." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 25 Sept. 2012.

"Huguenots." The Canadian Encyclopedia. The Canadian Encyclopedia Historica-Dominion, 2012. Web 25 Sept. 2012

Wikipedia versus The Oxford Companion to British History Topic Selected: Picts

Picts in Wikipedia

The Pict people are a ethnic group that existed in Late Iron Age and Early Medieval Celtic in eastern and northern Scotland. They were known as mainly a farming and fishing people that later merged with the Gaels and other Scottish tribes to form the definition of 'Scots' people. The Pict language is extinct and most of early Pict history is shrouded in myth and legend. The first actual recording of the Pict people is before the Roman conquest of Britain, in the Dark Ages and they are continually seen in different historical documents up until the 10th century.

The name 'Pict' actually comes from Latin meaning 'painted' or 'tattooed' people. Historians are unsure of what the Pict people actually called themselves. During the Roman conquest of Britain they were simply referred to, along with all other peoples who lived north of Hadrian's wall as 'Cruthin'.

The Picts are believed to have had at least seven different kingdoms and to have conquered over the Gaels and Britons for a time. During the Viking Age however, they lost their hold over the other tribes and began the slow, generational process of amalgamating with the other other tribes and disappearing from history.

The Picts were among the first to give up Celtic polytheism and adapt Christianity. The worshiping of Saints became very important to their culture. Their artwork was adapted into Christianity and their intricate knot-work is still used today as part of Celtic heritage.

Picts in The Oxford Companion to British History

An indigenous tribe or group of tribes of Scotland during the Roman and post-Roman era. They are first mentioned as 'half-naked enemies' of the Britons. Classical writers referred to them as the 'painted people' because of habit of tribes painting themselves with woad and the Picts, like other tribes may have also been tattooed.

Classical writers cannot determine if the word 'Pict' refers to one particular ethnic group or a group of tribes. The word is considered today to be the name for a group or federation of people. The historical recordings of the Pict people are of their attacks on Roman Britain along with the Scots, Irish and Saxons culminating in the Pict war of 367-8AD. They are often referred to as savages and brutes in history. Christianity separated the Picts into northern and southern groups with later converted.

Today, Picts are represented by their artwork and carved symbol stones found in Scotland.

Articles Compared

The Wikipedia article goes into quite extensive detail and takes an in-depth look at the society, language, history, religion and more. They are hyperlinks to different main article on the Pictish language and Kings of the Picts, along with more information on other neighbouring tribes and groups. The article also maintains an unbiased viewpoint, seeking to solely give information to the reader. The references are extensive and gives three very informative further reading books to consider at the end of article. The article also offers pictures on the sidebar as well as references to Picts in popular culture.

The Oxford article was short and concise but gave very little detail and very few sources for further reading or references. It also contains different information about the period in which the Picts existed in Scotland as well as historical references from obviously bias sources, conquers of Britain. Picts are only referenced in deeming ways and with war on Roman Britain. In Christian writings they are also seem a savage and unclean despite their conversion to Christianity. There is very little information of Pictish society and role in Scotland and Britain. However the time line and dates help give a better idea to the reader about in which time frame to place the Pict people in history.

The two articles seem to maintain similar information about the Pict people but from very different sources. The Wikipedia article gives a variety of sources and pulls directly from Scottish, English and Irish history; whereas the Oxford article pulls only from a few sources, all of which are Roman and Christian.

References in the Articles

The Oxford Companion to British History had only in-text references. Most of these references have no documented source. The article simply states the views of classical writers such as Julius Ceaser, a roman poet in the time of Emperor Constantius, Ammianus Marcellinus and early Christian missionaries. This list of references is hardly current and extremely bias towards the Roman occupation of Britain. There is also no information on the actual writer on the article besides a name given at the end of the article. The further reading section only lists two encyclopedia articles, one of which is the Wikipedia article on Picts.

The Wikipedia article has more than more forty references and seventy-three footnotes. Quite a few of these references are from Scottish or English writers and almost all have scholarly or authoritative backgrounds. A great deal of these references come from Scottish background but are relatively free of bias; as much as any reference could. There are authors of the Roman occupation to Pict stone carvings and metalwork. There are authoritative works on language and class systems among the Pict as well as geography. There are no references outside of the United Kingdom and many of the works used are from the same author. However most of the works referenced are current and relevant to the topic.

Article Assessment

I picked this topic because out of all the topics I choose during the first assignment this was the one that had so much glaring discrepancy between the two articles. I have to say I'm disappointed in all of the encyclopedia articles I read but none more so then the Oxford Companion to British History.

By no standard was this a good article. It was short and gives very little information about the Pict people besides a brief overview of the culture and name. It goes on to use bias sources that are hardly relevant as they do not come from the country of origin and have little factual information because the sources are from conquerors and have spent very little time among the people. While we are looking for historical information, the information given was not current and only provided one viewpoint. In the further reading section, the Wikipedia article on Picts in used along with one other encyclopedia article. Hardly enough new sources for a person looking for more information.

The Wikipedia article on the Pict people was absolutely what I was hoping to find in the other encyclopedias. It was comprehensive, listing various different parts of the Pict people such as, language and lifestyle as well as information on how the related to other tribes across England, Scotland and Ireland. It goes on to provide relevant subject matter on why the Pict people have become part of history, how they transformed or amalgamated, as well as providing the reader with update information on existing Pict art and stone work.

The sources for the Wikipedia article are extensive and current, and come from authoritative sources. The further reading section provides three books instead of other internet sources. I found this unique and interesting. Whereas I usually think Wikipedia is a good source for further online reading, I was surprised to find that someone had thought to offer books as well as their ISBN number. I also liked that further down the page offered an abundance of external links that were all up to date and relevant sources for the topic.

The Wikipedia article has no real need to improve. Like any source of information, it could always use more diversity of sources but it does a good job of providing a comprehensive account of the Pict people for the reader in a relatively unbiased way. Something I particularly enjoy as a former student of Anthropology.

The lack of information on a people from a source that should provide the most is shocking, especially since the source was a encyclopedia from a neighbouring country. Wikipedia's international has obviously done well on this article and this would be the first time I actually recommend that a reader check the Wikipedia article has an authoritative source.

Reference

Clancy, Thomas Owen. "Iona In The Kingdom Of The Picts: A Note." Innes Review 55.1 (2004): 73-76. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Oct. 2012.

Clarkson, T. J. The Picts : A History / Tim Clarkson. n.p.: Edinburgh : John Donald, 2010., 2010. Harvard Library Bibliographic Dataset. Web. 1 Nov. 2012.

Dunbavin, Paul. Picts And Ancient Britons : An Exploration Of Pictish Origins / Paul Dunbavin. n.p.: Long Eaton, Nottingham : Third Millennium Pub., 1998., 1998. Harvard Library Bibliographic Dataset. Web. 29 Oct. 2012.

Evans, Nicholas. "Royal Succession And Kingship Among The Picts." Innes Review 59.1 (2008): 1-48. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Nov. 2012.

Foster, Sally M. Picts, Gaels And Scots / Sally M. Foster. n.p.: London : Batsford : Historic Scotland, 2004., 2004. Harvard Library Bibliographic Dataset. Web. 9 Nov. 2012.

Grydehoj, Adam. "Historiography of Picts Vikings, Scots and fairies and its influence on Shetland's twenty-first century economic development." (2009). British Library EThOS. Web. 2 Nov. 2012.

Keys, David, and K. D. "Rethinking The Picts." Archaeology 57.5 (2004): 40-44. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Nov. 2012.

Mann, Adam. "Scienceshot: Unlocking The Secrets Of Pictish Stones." Science Now (2010): 4. MasterFILE Elite. Web. 19 Oct. 2012.

"Picts." Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6Th Edition (2011): 1. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Nov. 2012.

"Picts." The Oxford Companion to British History. Encyclopedia.com, 2002. 29 Sept. 2012.

"Picts." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 22 Sept. 2012.

Sedgewick, Jessica. "Picts." World History: Ancient And Medieval Eras (2006): ABC-CLIO Social Studies Databases, School Edition. Web. 15 Oct. 2012.

Sharpe, Richard. "In Quest Of Pictish Manuscripts." Innes Review 59.2 (2008): 145-167. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 Oct. 2012.

Snow, Dean R. "Scotland's Irish Origins." Archaeology 54.4 (2001): 46. MasterFILE Elite. Web. 9 Nov. 2012.