[Air-L] using wikipedia articles in academic paper (Kate Milberry)

[Dr. Dina Ralt]

As discussed here, Wikipedia has it's problems e.g.

Ann Pharmacother.  2008;42(12):1814-1821

http://www.theannals.com/cgi/content/abstract/42/12/1814
Would you think that Medpedia will be more reliable?
http://www.medpedia.com/


Dr. Dina Ralt
http://nettingno.blogspot.com/
 Tl: 972-3-5224750 Cellular: 972-52-8000210
Life is too short to be in a hurry...


On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Kate Milberry <mmilberr at sfu.ca> wrote:

> I frequently use Wikipedia as a starting point and foundation for scantily researched
> (at least in the social sciences) technical subjects.
>
> When nobody was writing on wikis, social software, copyleft, crowd sourcing
> or free software, Wikipedia had the most comprehensive definitions. Unlike
> an online dictionary reference, Wikipedia also contains history,
> controversies, (often academic) citations and links out to key people and
> websites. Researching the development and use of internet technology for
> social justice activism, I typically find that Wikipedia has the most
> useful, if not the only, information I'm looking for. While my research
> area
> has gained more attention from academe recently, this was not always the
> case.
>
> Further, with “official” academic work, there is often a lag between time
> of
> writing and publication. When writing about “now” technology, this material
> is typically out of date, and perhaps useless to the discussion or question
> at hand.
>
> There is a conflation in this discussion between researchers well versed in
> a subject using Wikipedia out of necessity (rather than laziness or poor
> research skills) and undergraduate students doing a Google search and
> clicking the top link – usually Wikipedia. In my classes, I discourage the
> use of Wikipedia, in order to foster “proper” research techniques. Students
> need to learn academic protocol in research, established and long used for
> excellent reasons, before they consciously veer from this.
>
> I wonder how the “grown up” readers of our work can find more information
> on
> a topic when we, the folks who presumably dedicate our working lives to it,
> cannot do so easily. There is also a question of accessibility to knowledge
> that I think is important and has been glossed. Perhaps highly technical
> information could be found by scouring the computer science journals,
> although I have not found this process highly fruitful. In any case, the
> default to jargony, near-impenetrable information written by “authorized
> knowers” over collaboratively produced knowledge by Wikipedian experts
> written for a lay audience is not surprising, but it is a bit worn.
>
> While there are certainly well-documented problems with Wikipedia, and I do
> think it should be used sparingly and critically, I think the quickness to
> offense by reviewers is unwarranted. Collaboratively produced, “un-peer
> reviewed” knowledge is as old as humanity and should not be so easily
> dismissed. The subject area should be considered, and if the reviewer is so
> sure this information is readily to be found, perhaps s/he should do a
> quick
> Google Scholar search herself.
>
> Kate
> ________
>
> M. Kathleen Milberry
> PhD candidate
> ACT Lab/School of Communication
> Simon Fraser University
> Vancouver, BC, Canada
> (604) 787-5903
>
> blog: http://geeksandglobaljustice.com
>
> lab: http://www.actlab.org
> _______________________________________________
> The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>
> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
> http://www.aoir.org/
>
>