Wikipedia

[Jean Hewlett]

I took my first look at Wikipedia today, and I was impressed. It may not be
totally authoritative, but I checked some articles where I know the subject
(Centaur, Horse, various horse-related subjects) and they seemed to have been
written by knowledgeable people. (Perhaps their first draft came from the
1911 Encyclopedia Britanica? There was a definite British focus, and some of
the material did seem a bit dated.)

In addition to standard topics, there was extensive coverage of subjects I
wouldn't expect to find in most general encyclopedias (Furry fiction, Teenage
Mutant Ninja Turtles.) Changes to the material are well-documented, and there
seems to be a serious effort to expand the articles and make them useful and
literate. I would use it for personal research, although I'd still provide a
few caveats before recommending it to students.

Incidentally, they are looking for some experts to expand the "stub" article
about Libraries at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library
Anyone interested?

Jean Hewlett
Regional Librarian, North Bay Campus, University of San Francisco

Morbus Iff wrote:

> 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



*********************************************************************
Due to deletion of content types excluded from this list by policy,
this multipart message was reduced to a single part, and from there
to a plain text message.
*********************************************************************