[Web4lib] Wikipedia vs Britannica

[Chuck0]

Drew, Bill wrote:
> I did not realize that was happening.  I did not mean to put you on the
> spot.

That's okay. I've experienced worse.

I would like to see my librarian colleagues be more critical of 
Wikipedia. I like Wikipedia as much as the next person, but it has some 
serious problems that aren't helped by Wikipedia worship and recitation 
of phrases about "damage being self-corrected."

On of these problems if defamation of people. I've experienced this on 
Wikipedia, but can't go into details at this time because defamation 
kind of involves false stuff being said about a person.

Wikipedia is going to have more headaches on its hands if Jimbo and the 
Wikipedians don't implement changes. They simply can't get away with the 
stance that Wikipedia is "beta." Wikipedia is a prominent Internet 
resource whose contents are prominently featured in any search engine 
search. There will be a growing number of people who won't be happy that 
Wikipedia hosts false or private information about them.

Wikipedia can address this problem by giving subjects the final say 
about what goes into entries about them. If somebody posts my phone 
number or home address in a Wikipedia entry about me, I have a 
reasonable expectation that the information be removed if I ask.

Then there is the bigger problem with "accuracy" and "authority." I 
think that we librarians need to chill a bit about the accuracy problem 
with Wikipedia. After all, we've been steering people to websites for 
years which have inaccurate information. We know about reference tools 
that are filled with bad information. I have a copy of "The Oxford 
Companion to the Politics of the World" which contains a mostly wrong 
entry about my political persuasion. This is a regular reference tool 
with heft--I could probably press tofu with it.

My suggestion for Wikipedia's "authority" problem would entail creating 
teams of volunteers for subject areas. The members of these teams would 
have to show that they know a few things about a subject--they don't 
have to be an academic, of course. Rotate the membership of the teams on 
an annual basis. Give the teams the ability to resolve disputes and 
"freeze" entries. They could do much more, but you get my basic idea.

Chuck