[Web4lib] Problems with Wikipedia

[Tim Spalding]

I do not think Wikipedia should be relied upon in most scholarly
contexts. (It's lousy in Classics, that's for sure.) But examine the
final paragraph of the Williams College Libraries page:

"Without knowing who wrote the article, it is not possible to judge
whether the author's writing is worthy of respect, or to critique his
or her motivations or qualifications. In short, without a known
author, Wikipedia articles cannot be considered authoritative."

Is this critical thinking at Williams? Surely the
argument-from-authority is as wrong now as it ever was—"Aristotle said
it" is no argument at all, and "some English prof said it" is
considerably worse. The same goes for the notion that, if you know the
author, you can "critique his or her motivations." And why stop at
motivations? I hear Prof. McGowan is Welsh—case closed!

High school is for looking stuff up and spitting it back—bad high
school anyway. After high school, you should go beyond that. When you
get down to it *everything* must be suspect. Critical thinking and
source criticism have always been basic to academic inquiry. You go to
college in part to learn that there are no "authoritative"
shortcuts—no royal road to truth and quality, be it collaborative
production or Ipse dixit. If your library tells you otherwise, don't
believe it.

PS: And did they choose postmodernism, with its critique of authority
and even knowledge to be funny, or what?

On 1/4/07, Michael McCulley <drweb at san.rr.com> wrote
>
> Meredith,
>
> Good points, but your note is why I caution students and patrons *not* to
> rely on Wikipedia as a "quality" source. I didn't see the notes on the list
> as "demonizing" Wikipedia, but pointing out an error; and bringing to this
> group's attention erroneous information.
>
> Despite good efforts by the "user" community, it remains unreliable as a
> source of information - for the most part. It's good for finding quick
> information about new topics uncovered by other encyclopedia sources -
> granted; it's one of it's strengths. I often use it for new topics, Web or
> Internet related items, but mostly to find good links to other sources.
>
> There are a tremendous number of Wikipedia backers and supporters, all hail
> to them; but, for the majority of librarians, it should be approached with a
> professionalism that requires the information be considered "suspect." The
> reason: anyone can change anything in Wikipedia at any time; it doesn't
> matter how quick the information is "fixed;" the community who build
> Wikipedia need to address this somehow (locking "verified" information
> items), but until this is resolved, I stand by my position.
>
> I'm one of those who urge caveats with Wikipedia, as you can see from my
> blog entries on this topic.
>
> Best,
> Michael
>
> --
> P. Michael McCulley aka DrWeb
> mailto:drweb at san.rr.com
> San Diego, CA
> http://drweb.typepad.com/
>
> Quote of the Moment:
>  We find the defendant innocent by reason of being generally clueless.
> Thursday, January 04, 2007 3:30:21 PM
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org
> >[mailto:web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of Meredith Farkas
> >Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 2:55 PM
> >To: web4lib at webjunction.org
> >Subject: Re: [Web4lib] Problems with Wikipedia
> >
> >Andrzej,
> >
> >I would hope that you would caution your students to be critical of
> >everything they read. The Wikipedia is far more trustworthy than most
> >Websites for the simple fact that anyone who is knowledgeable
> >about a topic
> >can come in and fix inaccuracies. Any idiot can create a
> >Website that makes
> >opinion and untruths look like fact and I would bet that many of your
> >students are happy to cite facts from anything they can find
> >on their topic
> >online. Librarians (and I'm not just pointing the finger at
> >you Andrzej)
> >should stop demonizing specific Websites and should be more
> >concerned with
> >students knowing how to distinguish between a quality source
> >and something
> >that should not be cited in a paper.
> >
> >Meredith
>
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>