[Web4lib] Wikipedia vs Britannica

[Gerry Mckiernan]

Dan et al.

Yes. No Reference work is perfect.
I recall a Reference assignment in my Advanced Reference 
course in Library School 30 years ago [Ugh!]

No two reference works were in complete agreement on several major biographical facts !!!

BTW: For those who have not yet read my review of 
the features/functionalities/content of Wikipedia, please 
pledge to do so in the New Year [:-)

Gerry McKiernan, "WikimediaWorlds. Part I. Wikipedia," _Library Hi Tech News_ 22, no. 8 (September/October 2005): 46-54. 

Overview/Summary from the publisher

ABSTRACT: Purpose - This article of part 1 of a two part series on wikis. Part 1 focuses on Wikipedia. Design/methodology/approach - The article is prepared by a library professional and provides a summary of the main features. Findings - A wiki is a piece of server software that allows users to freely create and edit web page content using any web browser. Wiki supports hyperlinks and has a simple text syntax for creating new pages and crosslinks between internal pages on the fly. Originality/value - This article is a useful summary of a development of interest to library and information management professionals

[ http://www.public.iastate.edu/~gerrymck/WMW-I.pdf  ]

The Lesson: Trust But Verify [:-)

/Gerry 

Gerry McKiernan
Science and Technology Librarian 
Iowa State University Library 
Ames IA 50011

gerrymck at iastate.edu 



>>> Dan Lester <dan at riverofdata.com> 01/05/06 11:13 AM >>>

Wednesday, January 4, 2006, 11:47:40 AM, you wrote:

RW> Do you mean "Science" or do you mean "Nature"?  The former, a respected US
RW> journal, has its own problems with the faked stem cell research out of
RW> Korea. The latter is a respected UK journal.  I do believe that the Nature
RW> story on "Wikipedia vs. Britannica" is flawed in many ways and has gotten
RW> way too much ink exonerating Wikipedia precisely at a time when questions
RW> need to be answered.

Yes, I meant Nature.  Mea culpa.

And I don't hold the faked research against the journal as such, since
I'm sure the article was reviewed by experts in the field before
publication.  I'm sure you remember the cold fusion (as opposed to
Cold Fusion) fraud a few years ago that also got through extensive
review processes.

There will always be those who try to fake things in all areas.
Recall Prof. Belleisles a few years ago with his history fraud, and
even won the Bancroft Prize before it was caught?   Fortunately, most
of them are eventually rooted out.

I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia is perfect or anything like that, but
neither is the Britannica or ANY other reference tool we use.  All we
can do is do our best to evaluate the tools and use the right tool for
the right job.  On many occasions Wikipedia is the right job.  On many
others the Britannica is.  And on even more occasions, neither is the
right tool.

-- 
Dan Lester, Data Wrangler  dan at RiverOfData.com 208-283-7711
3577 East Pecan, Boise, Idaho  83716-7115 USA
www.riverofdata.com  Fair is whatever God decides to do.

_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4lib at webjunction.org 
http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/