[WEB4LIB] Librarian: Don't use Wikipedia as source

[Morbus Iff]

This article rubs me the wrong way, personally. There are just as
many sites out there that DON'T have disclaimers on them, yet are
used for reference far more often than not. Say I want to research
mythology. Should I use pantheon.net, which looks all professional,
and has an entry on centaurs, focusing only on Greek mythology:

   http://www.pantheon.org/areas/bestiary/articles.html

(which is great if my worldview is focal to that theology, and
not say, on the evolution of centaurs into other books, games,
and similar races). Or should I use wikipedia.org:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centaurs

which has far more to say, far more "links" to "learn" from,
and an exact history of what was modified, by whom, and when:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Centaur&action=history

As an anal librarian, researcher, or scholar, I would MUCH prefer
to lend my talents to wikipedia.org, correcting any errors I might
personally see, contacting those who made said errors, et cetera.

Also, the librarian who sent the email didn't mention/know that
wikipedia.org HAS been recently adding "authoritative" date,
now copyright free, from:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopaedia_Britannica
   "The 1911 edition is no longer restricted by 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright>copyright, and it
   is available in several more modern forms. Much content from the
   1911 edition has been incorporated into 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia>Wikipedia; a quick count
   in July 2004 claimed around 1950 articles. A large number of these
   are about historical figures or events, and are unlikely to require
   much revision to remain excellent summaries for the ... future."

What this one librarian deems "too far", I see as a strength: I'd
much rather be able to correct an error RIGHT NOW then to contact a
supposedly authoritative site, inform them of an error, and receive
no response, lackluster hubris, or worse yet, blanket acceptance (as
blanket acceptance of a fact on an authoritative site is worse than
a lie on an unauthoritative site). Similarly, I doubt that pantheon.org
would be interested in listing the "evolution" of centaurs and the
suffix "taur" into non-mythological, but related, beasts.



-- 
Morbus Iff ( you are nothing without your robot car, NOTHING! )
Culture: http://www.disobey.com/ and http://www.gamegrene.com/
Spidering Hacks: http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0596005776/disobeycom
icq: 2927491 / aim: akaMorbus / yahoo: morbus_iff / jabber.org: morbus