[Web4lib] Wikipedia in Chronicle of Higher Education

[Mike Taylor]

Jimm Wetherbee writes:
 > Amusing or not, wouldn't the question be how much vetting is
 > necessary before an article goes out as authoritative to those who
 > are not experts in the subject under consideration and how do the
 > rest of us know that a given article is "good enough."

I think the issue here is confusion between "authoritative" (which no
Wikipedia article will ever be) and "good enough" (which 99% of
Wikipedia articles are for most purposes).  I use Wikipedia _a lot_
for finding out about stuff, and especially for pointers to the
primary literature.

Of course, like you, I would never treat it as an authoritative
source.  But neither would I treat Brittanica as authoritative --
would you?  Surely the point of all encyclopedia is to give a
non-authoritative overview of subjects and to point to where
authoritative information can be had.  On that basis, I find Wikipedia
way more satisfactory that Brittanica because:
- It's a click away
- It's free (as in free beer)
- It's free (as in free speech)
- Its coverage is much wider
- It doesn't give the false impression of authority!

None of this is to say that Wikipedia is perfect -- of course.  It's
way short of perfect.  It's just that it's way better than anything
else that's out there.

 _/|_	 ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor    <mike at indexdata.com>    http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "Half a bee, philosophically, must ipso-facto half not-be, / But
	 half the bee has got to be, vis-a-vis its entity.  D'you see? /
	 But can a bee be said to be, or not to be, an entire bee, /
	 When half the bee is not a bee, due to some ancient injury?" --
	 _Eric the Half a Bee_, Monty Python.