Information Sources Analysis
Charlotte Merritt
LIB:205 Intro to Info Sources & Service
Professor Shari Lee
March 10, 2022
Regarding the texts to be studied, despite my best attempt to locate a physical copy of a
2020 dictionary, which didn’t seem difficult at first glance, I was unable to do so after visiting
two libraries and four bookstores, then ordering one online only to have the funds returned
because they were out of stock. Instead, I will be comparing the COVID definitions of MerriamWebster online and Encyclopedia Britannica online.
FORMAT: Without context, one would assume the definition of the virus found in the
dictionary would suffice, and while the pronunciation, origin, and symptoms are very important
information and key to defining it in lay terms, it lacks substance and contains some strange
notes that muddy the entry with unnecessary information. The advantage a print edition would
have over digital is that space is limited due to printing costs, and it would be more concise than
the digital version. The obvious disadvantage to an American library is that they would have to
purchase multiple copies to assist multiple users. Whereas in less developed countries a print
edition may be the only available format. Digital wins over print because it is accessible, low or
no cost, and updated for free. Print editions take up space, cost money to acquire and update, and
are only available locally to as many users as the library possesses copies.
The difference between the dictionary and the encyclopedia reference however is more
technical. While both entries cover the definition and origin, the Britannica version contains
information concerning the composition of the virus and its relation to the SARS virus family. It
speaks of its transmission and the fact it is a zoonotic disease, both important pieces of
information regarding a pandemic disease. Again, the notes in the middle muddy the entry. But I
am uncertain if this is because the research is related, or the editor didn’t suffer from the
constraints of print editions. Both entries were also about two pages long, but the encyclopedia
entry was significantly broader and much more in-depth information. With all the advantages of
digital over print listed above, the only argument for print lies in the incidental exposure to
information in the pursuit of facts. Like the card catalog, the random absorption of data in the
process of locating specific information has yet to be replicated digitally. It is unlikely that the
human mind can create a computer capable of such random albeit useful intent.
SCOPE: In the area of chronology, both entries are identical. Since the majority of the
information was not available until the end of 2019, the 2020 edition is the most recent definition
of COVID-19. Both texts are from long-held reliable sources of information, but Encyclopedia
Britannica contains more useful information than the Merriam-Webster entry. This is inherent in
the difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia which is something to consider when
recommending a source of information for defining a subject. I personally lean towards the
encyclopedia for two reasons, it contains a larger breadth of information while still containing a
definition, and they are often illustrated to provide additional context to the subject.
AUTHORITY: While both companies maintain separate headquarters, Merriam-Webster
was acquired by Encyclopedia Britannica in 1964. Encyclopedia Britannica started in Edinburgh,
Scotland in 1768, ending their print edition in 2012 and maintaining a standard of excellence for
over 250 years. While Merriam-Webster started in Springfield, Massachusetts in 1831. Both
operate online sites which are regularly updated and sources of information are thoroughly
vetted. Merriam-Webster maintains a limited print series mostly aimed at students and medical
professionals which is considered the gold standard in dictionaries across the planet, exceeded
only by the Oxford dictionary which contains more slang definitions than Merriam-Webster.
UPDATING: The Encyclopedia Britannica is only available online since 2012. Print
editions are available from Merriam-Webster (if you can find them) on a limited basis. Both sites
update their internet data at least annually, more if major historical events occur. MerriamWebster prints their dictionaries annually and revises and edits them about every ten years.
Before the encyclopedia went out of print, I would have advised the dictionary as a source of
more recent information considering most libraries do not have the budget to acquire a new set
annually. But since the digitization of both sources, my preference has shifted to the
encyclopedia. In terms of useful information, a dictionary cannot compete with an encyclopedia.
ACCESS: As discussed above, the problem with print is that it is limited to only a single
user at a time and is less cost effective than digital sources. This is why both Merriam-Webster
and Encyclopedia Britannica have digitized their volumes. The ease of use, multiple points of
access, and low cost have made print editions nearly obsolete. In the case of World Book, the
existence of a print encyclopedia has become a niche market which they exploit for a profit.
With very few exceptions, there are no libraries in the United States that do not have internet
access. This keeps cost low and allows multiple users to access the information simultaneously.
In the past, CD-ROMs were sent via mail to places where internet was not available. But this too
is nearly obsolete in the internet saturated United States of America. The advantage print would
have over both items is that print would be available if there were a power outage and you
wouldn’t need a computer with internet to access it while travelling.
RETREVIAL: The ease of use inherent in digital reference makes it a strong favorite
among users. However, the curiosity of the growing mind is limited by indexes and searchable
databases. Most of the information I absorbed in school was a deviation for the assigned task that
occurred while thumbing through a card catalog or flipping through an encyclopedia. I am biased
in this regard, as most modern learners only use dictionaries and encyclopedias to find a single
subject. Much in the way civil discourse has been replaced by internet searches, the method of
learning has limited its scope to only the subject concerned. There is nothing wrong with the
easy and useful design of digital reference. Both Merriam-Webster and Encyclopedia Britannica
feature the standard author, title, subject search capability. The medical dictionary even contains
a Boolean search, (if memory serves) and DOI searches. Again, print would be at a disadvantage
here due to library hours, the prominence of the reference section at the library, and the number
of books available to users.
ORGANIZATION: The dictionary is always arranged alphabetically, as is the
encyclopedia. But the encyclopedia refers to other subjects related to the entry while the
dictionary only refers to definitions of the same word. Even a thesaurus will only refer to words
with similar meanings. The encyclopedia contains more real-world information. Instead of just
defining the word, it defines the subject as completely as possible. The Encyclopedia also uses
graphics and photos to add context to the entry. The subject is first defined, then expanded upon
with historical data, and related subject following the subject-specific information.
TREATMENT: AUDIENCE: Encyclopedias are inherently designed for students. They
contain verified sources of information for the growing mind to absorb. While dictionaries exist
simply to show the common usage of a word at the time of printing. This makes them useful not
only for students, but for anyone looking to a quick easy method of increasing their
understanding on a specific subject. That being said, encyclopedias may offer users information
they were not aware was related to the subject. Spontaneous learning is difficult to come by in
the one-click world of education modern learners know making it superior to the dictionary.
CONTENT RELATIVE TO OTHERS: Much in the way languages have changed over
the years, the dictionary has changed as well. Instead of broadly defining the words contained
within, they offer a relative definition based on the location they are printed in. Merriam-Webster
is largely an American product, hence its differences from the Oxford dictionary, which is
largely circulated in European countries. Therefore, its definitions and spellings are aligned with
the ones inherent in Europe. The encyclopedia differs in this sense as the entry is defined by the
subject and not its usage.
CONCLUSION: While the dictionary is a quick and easy source of information it lacks
depth and, in some cases, context pertaining to the subject. The encyclopedia contains more
information making it a superior resource to the dictionary. The advantages of digitizing both
encyclopedias and print include low cost, ease of use, along with simultaneous use for multiple
patrons. With regard to its use in the library, the print edition is inferior due to the expense to
obtain and update, that multiple copies would have to be purchased for multiple users to access,
and that it would use a large amount of shelf space that could be put to better use for other items.
I would conclude that the digital Encyclopedia Britannica is superior to Merriam-Webster based
on its scope of information, relative content, and format. Like the dictionary, it is easily accessed
and updated without the limitations of print editions. But the information s organized in a way
that is more readily absorbed by a greater number of users.
REFERNCES:
Cassell, K. A., & Hiremath, U. (2018). Selecting and Evaluating Reference Materials. In
Reference and information services: An introduction (pp. 347–360). essay, ALA NealSchuman Association.
Encyclopedia Britannica (2020). coronavirus. Encyclopedia Britannica.
https://www.britannica.com/science/coronavirus-virus-group
Merriam-Webster (2020). COVID-19. Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/COVID-19