[Web4lib] Problems with Wikipedia

Fri Jan 5 16:48:35 EST 2007

Lars wrote: "The non-expert, the average person, doesn't know how to
identify an authoritative author either."

How do people determine "authority?" Well, from the OCLC "Perceptions of
Libraries and Information Resources
<http://www.oclc.org/reports/2005perceptions.htm>  (2005)." (Page 3.4).

"Factors in Determining Trustworthiness of Information:" (Total
Respondents)

	Based on personal knowledge/common sense 86%
	Based on the reputation of the company/organization 75%
	Find the information on multiple sites/crossreferencing 65%
	Recommendation from a trusted source 59%
	Based on the professional appearance of the site 28%
	Based on the author 26%
	The fact that it costs money 1%
	Other 3%

And for the 65% of folks who crossreference, the question was asked:
"What other sources do you use to validate the information?" (Page 3.14)

	Other Web sites with similar information 82%
	Print material 68%
	Expert in the field of interest 51%
	Library materials 42%
	Friend 37%
	Coworker/professional colleague 36%
	Relative 26%
	Teacher/professor 25%
	Librarian 16%

So, basically, 86% of people base their idea of a web site's authority
on "common sense." If they validate, they do so against other, similar
sites 82% of the time... the authority for which (one assumes) is based
largely again on "common sense."

Now, 65% of people saying "Find the information on multiple
sites/crossreferencing" isn't bad, is it? That says that more than half
the people understand that, whether it's Wikipedia or Britannica... no
one source should be trusted without some kind of verification. So while
the debate about the specific authoritativeness of any one source is
always important... the more important issue may be: over time, what
institutions, sites, materials and tools are encouraging better research
and study habits across the board? Is the popularity and openness of
Wikipedia making more people into "better" students and information
seekers? And better editors and writers? 

One thought I have (for which I have no data and no authority ;-) ) is
that by encouraging open participation, Wikipedia explicitly invites us
all to behave as writers and editors of knowledge content; some of us
do, some of us don't. But we all are at least invited to treat the
information in Wikipedia as something that, should we take issue with
it, we might engage it. If we do find a better authority elsewhere, we
can edit Wikipedia. We can be "in that flow." 

In marketing, inviting participation is one of the absolute best ways to
encourage brand loyalty and long-term engagement with your product. If
we take a "closed" yet authoritative information object, a student/user
may in fact get a better answer from it in terms of the data contained
in that particular product. If, however, we expose the same person to an
open information object, the student may learn "meta skills" related to
that information. To be a bit hyperbolic, I bet very few people have
ever thought to themselves, "You know, I'd like to edit that Britannica
article. I think I'll go find some stuff out and do that." Whereas
millions have done just that for Wikipedia.

So... while it may not be a particularly good single source for any
individual article, and may not even be the best overall source for
encyclopedic-level reference... does its existence and use actually
improve the "information behavior habits" of the audience?

I don't know. Just a thought I had while reading all the interesting
comments on this topic.

- A

Andy Havens
Manager, Creative Services
OCLC
email: havensa at oclc.org
phone: 614.764.4326

-----Original Message-----
From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org
[mailto:web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org
<mailto:web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org> ] On Behalf Of Lars Aronsson
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 1:41 PM
To: web4lib
Subject: Re: [Web4lib] Problems with Wikipedia

Jimm Wetherbee wrote:

> For someone who is not an authority, William's argument is quite
> sound.  Note that the library did not say that without a known
> authority behind an article its truthfulness cannot be evaluated,
> rather that a non-expert in a given field cannot judge whether a given
> article is in line with the current state of knowledge on that topic.

The non-expert, the average person, doesn't know how to identify an
authoritative author either.  They would trust a well-known face from
TV, but cannot tell a real professor apart from any photo model in a
white coat in a medical advertisement.  The white coat is probably more
important than the paper trail.

Hmm... perhaps I should get a photo of myself in a white coat to present
myself as an expert on my Wikipedia user's page.  Maybe something like
this stock photage,
http://www.medical-scrubs.com/white-lab-coat-3046.htm
<http://www.medical-scrubs.com/white-lab-coat-3046.htm> 
http://www.imagesource.com/search/image.aspx?id=215837
<http://www.imagesource.com/search/image.aspx?id=215837> 
http://www.comstock.com/web/search/loupe.asp?Image=KS85205.JPG&Type=RF&C
atID=&LightboxID=&NoPopUP=T
<http://www.comstock.com/web/search/loupe.asp?Image=KS85205.JPG&Type=RF&
CatID=&LightboxID=&NoPopUP=T> 
http://www.sullivanuniforms.com/uniformstore/prods/4010WH.html
<http://www.sullivanuniforms.com/uniformstore/prods/4010WH.html> 

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se <http://aronsson.se> 
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4lib at webjunction.org
http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
<http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/> 