[Air-L] NYTimes: How Much [Trust] ... Do You Have In Wikipedia Articles?

[Gerry Mckiernan]

***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

gerrymck at iastate.edu 

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

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

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