... Do You Have In Wikipedia Articles?

***Apologies for Receipt of Duplicate Postings***
Colleagues/

A NYTimes Question of The  Day:

"How Much Faith Do You Have In Wikipedia
Articles?"

~150 comments as of 14:00 CDT (Most Recent Handful) (See
Below)

Add  Your Comment

[ http://community.nytimes
.com/article/comments/2008/03/17/technology/17wikipedia.html
?s=2]

/Gerry

Wikipedia is a good place to start in a search for
information, but as a teacher in college and working in the
library I am continuously reminding students that Wikipedia
is NOT a proper academic reference, nor is any other
encyclopedia. The trouble comes when this rule is not
followed.

Wikipedia used to be my first choice until I became tired of
finding too much of inaccurate and misleading information.
Now, I am strongly opposed to usage of Wikipedia and would
rather spend an extra hour on research, than the 5 minutes
of reading the inaccurate information on Wiki. 

Wiki is nice place to start, but don't cite it for research
papers - you'll be laughed out of the classroom. Any
professor or teacher (as one person quipped earlier) who
"recommends" Wiki as a research source needs to go
back to school themselves. There is no way to verify any of
the information posted there. Anyone ever heard of a
library? Or even Lexix-Nexis?

Wikipedia policies require that all articles have footnotes
and appropriate citations. These are often separate
websites.

If you do not trust the content of an article than just look
up its sources, and if the article doesn't have sources than
an editor has likely already flagged the article as a
warning to others.

I love wikipedia and read it daily. It is great for getting
the cultural backstory on things (controversies,
connotations, up-to-date trends)

I'd grade wikipedia about as accurate as the New York
Times.

If one leaves aside controversial or fan-boy topics, much of
Wikipedia in invaluable. Sure, entries on George W. Bush or
the Iraq war or Hillary Clinton are rife with nonsense one
way or the other. But then look at things like
"Corrective lens" or "Cetacea" or
"rs-232" and you will begin to see why many people
value Wiki so highly.

Further, complaining about Wikipedia without having edited
topics is like complaining about government without voting.
It's only as good as its contributors. Don't complain --
participate.

I have a reasonable amount of faith in Wikipedia articles.
As with any source, it's important to check the accuracy of
anyhing you read to see if more than one other source can
corroborate it.

It's important to keep in mind that what you're reading here
about Wikipedia is a world away from wikis that are used in
countless organizations around the world as a way to reduce
email, collaborate more efficiently, organize knowledge,
improve the response time of call centers, and provide a
place for students and researchers to collaborate.

Wikipedia, or an encyclopedia built using a wiki, is but one
example of how a wiki can be used, and some of the problems
associated with a completely open wiki with a loosely tied
community do not carry over into other wiki uses where an
established community uses the tool to further its shared
purpose.

If you see an error on Wikipedia, click the "edit this
page" link at the top of the article and correct the
error. Edit boldly.

/Gerry

Gerry McKiernan
Associate Professor
Science and Technology Librarian
Iowa State University Library
Ames IA 50011

gerrymckiastate.edu 

There is Nothing More Powerful Than  An Idea Whose Time Has
Come
Victor Hugo
[ h
ttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093368136660604490 ]

Iowa: Where the Tall Corn Flows and the (North)West Wind
Blows 
[ http://al
ternativeenergyblogs.blogspot.com/ ]

[ http://community.nytimes
.com/article/comments/2008/03/17/technology/17wikipedia.html
?s=2]

_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/