[Web4lib] Authority + Wikipedia

[Mike Taylor]

> Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:14:38 -0500
> From: "Thomale, J" <j.thomale at ttu.edu>
>
> Just because a document is findable, this does not mean that its
> contents are *better* or more truthful than a document that is not
> findable.

Is there any indication that anyone thinks it is?

> That scholarly research cites more freely available online articles
> just because they are freely available online is a commentary on
> human nature and the state of scholarly research--but it should not
> be a prescription for the library community.

Here I disagree.  The prescription for the library community must
surely be "make more things findable".  An article that can't be found
might just as well not exist, however brilliantly argued it is.

> As librarians, we are supposed to be experts on helping people find
> and retrieve quality information. Another way to say this is that we
> are supposed to be experts on helping people find and retrieve
> *authoritative* information.

Yes.

> If we change our traditional definition of "authority" to match this
> constructivist definition of authority, then we are essentially
> equating quality with availability and (ultimately) popularity.

I think three unrelated things are being conflated here.  No-one is
suggesting that availability is the same thing as authority -- only
that the authority of an article is worthless if it's unavailable.
And popularity is a complete red herring.  An article may achieve
popularity through being available, but it certainly can't achieve
authority through popularity.

 _/|_	 ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <mike at miketaylor.org.uk>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "There are three rules for writing a novel.  Unfortunately,
	 no one knows what they are" -- W. Somerset Maugham.