[Web4lib] Wikipedia

[Shannon]

I love Wikipedia (for many of the reasons in the previous message), and have
even contributed to it.  But, as an instruction librarian at a university,
it's my responsibility to educate my students about the strengths and
weaknesses of Wikipedia.  This is an excerpt from a handout I made for my
students at Pace University:

*What’s wrong with Wikipedia?*

Nothing, if used with caution.  Wikipedia, like Britannica or any other
general encyclopedia is, at its best, a tertiary source.  Notice that, in
your syllabus, the list of sources that your professor has given as
acceptable for your research papers does not include tertiary sources.  College
and graduate-level research may start with a tertiary source, in the
exploration and background research stage.  Those tertiary sources may lead
you to quality secondary sources, but you should never quote Wikipedia (or
any other tertiary source) directly if there is a secondary source with that
same information.  Hunt down those secondary sources!  We librarians will
help you do it!

Although the Wikipedia community does a pretty good job of flagging
potentially incorrect or biased information, you never know if a flawed or
biased article was added right before you looked at it and hasn’t yet been
edited or flagged by someone in the Wikipedia community.

Another important aspect of scholarly research is the idea of Authority--the
credentials or level of expertise of the person you are quoting.  Wikipedia
content may be excellent, but Wikipedia does not require any credentials for
its contributors.  Keep in mind that the author of your favorite Wikipedia
article may be a top scholar in the field, or may be in middle school.
 Which is fine when reading for pleasure, but not fine for quoting in your
college level research.

And if you don’t take my word for it, ask Wikipedia:

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use>
**

or Stephen Colbert:

*
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/72347/july-31-2006/the-word---wikiality
*<http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/72347/july-31-2006/the-word---wikiality>
**

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shannon Kealey, M.L.S.
Instructional Services Librarian
Pace University, Birnbaum Library
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Naess, Petter <naessp at state.gov> wrote:

> Here's what I think: (Nicholson Baker
> <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21131>  put it into words for me....)
>
>
>
> Wikipedia is just an incredible thing. It's fact-encirclingly huge, and
> it's idiosyncratic, careful, messy, funny, shocking, and full of
> simmering controversies-and it's free, and it's fast. In a few seconds
> you can look up, for instance, "Diogenes of Sinope," or "turnip," or
> "Crazy Eddie," or "Bagoas," or "quadratic formula," or "Bristol
> Beaufighter," or "squeegee," or "Sanford B. Dole," and you'll have
> knowledge you didn't have before. It's like some vast aerial city with
> people walking briskly to and fro on catwalks, carrying picnic baskets
> full of nutritious snacks.
>
>
>
> More people use Wikipedia than Amazon or eBay-in fact it's up there in
> the top-ten Alexa rankings with those moneyed funhouses MySpace,
> Facebook, and YouTube. Why? Because it has 2.2 million articles, and
> because it's very often the first hit in a Google search, and because it
> just feels good to find something there-even, or especially, when the
> article you find is maybe a little clumsily written. Any inelegance, or
> typo, or relic of vandalism reminds you that this gigantic encyclopedia
> isn't a commercial product. There are no banners for E*Trade or
> Classmates.com, no side sprinklings of AdSense.
>
>
>
> It was constructed, in less than eight years, by strangers who disagreed
> about all kinds of things but who were drawn to a shared, not-for-profit
> purpose. They were drawn because for a work of reference Wikipedia
> seemed unusually humble. It asked for help, and when it did, it used a
> particularly affecting word: "stub." At the bottom of a short article
> about something, it would say, "This article about X is a stub. You can
> help Wikipedia by expanding it." And you'd think: That poor sad stub: I
> will help. Not right now, because I'm writing a book, but someday, yes,
> I will try to help.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org
> [mailto:web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of janette treanor
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 3:11 AM
> To: web4lib at webjunction.org
> Subject: [Web4lib] Wikipedia
>
>
>
> Morning All,
>
>
>
> I am wondering what you think of Wikipedia? I would appreciate hearing
> your
>
> opinion.
>
>
>
> kind regards
>
> janette
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Web4lib mailing list
>
> Web4lib at webjunction.org
>
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>
>