The topic I was assigned was “Eugine Williams July 27, 1919.” I plugged in these key search words in both Google and the interactive database. After reading through the information, I realized right away that only trivial facts aligned. I couldn’t even find the name “Eugine Williams” in the Wikipedia page. Instead I was given an entire story on the “Chicago Race Riot of 1919,” but Mr. Williams story wasn’t found throughout the Wiki paragraphs. I also noticed that the database laid out specific information based on what I typed in. The database never gave me “extra” information, rather went in depth on Mr. Williams. For example: it stated the fact that his race was African American. The database was quite different from the usual Wiki page. Wiki portrays the facts in a story like way, while the interactive database lists the facts in a bullet point kind of way, with a small paragraph tie-ing all the information together. For example: Wiki begins with how the riot was a major racial conflict and leads into different sections that contain information about the background, riot, and other specific events that occurred within the riot. While gaining more information, researchers can build upon the information they gather by plugging in other key words in the database that apply. Again when comparing the database with the wiki page its apparent that the database is the tool to use when wanting to find specific information regarding a topic, along with all the specifics that accompany the topic. The Wiki page has references and a cited portion at the bottom of the page, meaning that their information is reliable. I wouldn’t say Wiki isn’t reliable or useful, but I do believe it shouldn’t be the only tool used when researching. I believe that Wiki gives you the big picture and helps a researcher get acquainted with a topic, but when specific information is required, the database is a very useful tool. Personally, I will be using a combination of the two when completing my research project.