Introduction
With the beginning of the age of the Internet, the amount of generated information has increased manifold. The quality of that information remains highly doubtful. Many websites claim to spread the absolute truth but when checked against reliable sources cannot withstand criticism. Wikipedia has become one of the most popular sources of knowledge in the modern world. It contains millions of articles in several dozens of languages about virtually any topic possible. However, it faces the same problem of information credibility. Despite the fact that some articles are being created and approved by professionals in the corresponding sphere, the volume of such articles leaves much to be desired. Therefore, it is paramount to research Wikipedia articles’ accuracy checking them against scientific sources.
Hundred Years’ War
The article about Hundred Years’ War on Wikipedia seems to be well-structured in terms of periodicity and backed by the opinions of many historians. The Wikipedia contributors develop their narrative using academic yet easily readable language avoiding long sentences and complex structures. The text contains no offensive or otherwise inappropriate content. The authors also worked on the article’s visibility adding illustrations made by the artists of the corresponding period. Moreover, it features maps and dynasty networks that contribute to better information digestion. The article seems to present a clear and smooth transition between the portions of information. Since the information is plentiful a logical connection among the passages often benefits the understanding of the content.
The choice of literature also seems to be corresponding to a well-developed academic paper. The authors mostly cite reliable sources, such as the Oxford Dictionary of National Bibliography, when referring to historical figures such as Edward, Prince of Wales and of Aquitaine, Thomas, Duke of Clarence, and other people. Most of the books cited in the article are published by Oxford or Cambridge University Press, which speaks further to the credibility of the used sources.
However, some sources do not conform to the standards of scientific historical research. For instance, stating that the War of the Roses was anticipated by the dire consequences of England’s defeat in the Hundred Years’ War, the Wikipedia contributors cite Luminarium Encyclopedia. It is an online project with an unknown editor. Despite the statement being considered to be true, the citation could have been borrowed from a more sound source.
As for the content of the Wikipedia article, the section about the significance seems to lack information. It contains general information on historical implications and military aspects. The effects of the war were far broader than that and historians have multiple views on them. For instance, McFarlane notices that the English nation despite losing the war yielded profit from occupying French land. Post, however, argues that the English suffered enormous financial losses due to inadequate spending policy that furthered the impoverishment of the population and did not gain anything. This scientific debate could have been mentioned to avoid bias as there is more than one view on history and the article that is intended for a mass reader should inform them about such plurality of opinions.
The social consequences of the war also seem to be poorly addressed. For example, Postan narrates that the process of establishment of wealthy families in the countryside was directly affected by the Hundred Years’ War. The authors have done an excellent job of describing the events of the war itself but the consequences appear to be left behind. The origin of the conflict was reviewed in detail and a large portion of space was allocated to the development of the conflict. However, the initial statement that the disruption of the Capetians’ male line became an official cause of the war lacks a source. In addition, economic motifs for the war were not touched. Templeman notices that despite they did not play a major part in severing the relationships between countries, they played a significant part in motivating the kings.
Conclusion
All in all, the Wikipedia article about the Hundred Years’ War seems to be well-developed and leaves an impression of a proper scholarly source that may be used for educational purposes. It is well-structured, equipped with illustrative material that simplifies the understanding of the article. The use of sources seems to comply with most academic standards due to the use of scholarly articles, books endorsed and printed by reputable publishers. It contains no major content errors.
On the other hand, the article seems to be slightly biased by not presenting the alternative points of view. In addition, the parts about the consequences and origins of the conflict lack information. Some parts also lack citation. Overall, this Wikipedia article could be used for getting acquainted with the material but lacks some detail for an in-depth study.
Bibliography
Allen, Matthew. “What was Web 2.0? Versions as the dominant mode of internet history.” New Media & Society 15, no. 2 (2013): 260-275.
Mai, Jens‐Erik. “The quality and qualities of information.” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 64, no. 4 (2013): 675-688.
McFarlane, Kenneth B. “England and the Hundred Years’ War.” Past & Present, no. 22 (1962): 3-13.
Postan, Michael. “Some Social Consequences of the Hundred Years’ War.” The Economic History Review, vol. 12, no.1/2 (1942): 1–12.
Postan, Michael. “The Costs of the Hundred Years’ War.” Past & Present, no. 27 (1964): 34–53.
Templeman, Geoffrey. “Edward III and the Beginnings of the Hundred Years War.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society vol. 2 (1952): 69–88.