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

[Binkley, Peter]

Note further that it is an oversimplification to say that "there is no
editorial review of the content". Changes are under constant review by the
community of users. You couldn't run a traditional encyclopedia that way,
and we don't really know yet whether the model is sustainable, but I don't
think it should be dismissed as "non-authoritative" as if it were in the
same category as personal blogs. The community regulates itself through a
set of defined policies and structures, which e.g. deal with "edit wars"
through a dispute resolution mechanism
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution). Vandalism is
quickly detected and reversed. You lose something in traditional authority,
but you gain in the correction of errors and removal of obsolete information
by the community. We get excellent software out of the open model, and in my
experience with wikipedia we get a pretty good encyclopedia, too.

Peter

Peter Binkley, Ph.D., MLIS
Digital Initiatives Technology Librarian
Information Technology Services
4-30 Cameron Library
University of Alberta Libraries
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada T6G 2J8
Phone: (780) 492-3743
Fax: (780) 492-9243
e-mail: peter.binkley at ualberta.ca



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Morbus Iff [mailto:morbus at disobey.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 11:38 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: [WEB4LIB] Re: Librarian: Don't use Wikipedia as source
> 
> 
> 
> 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