I figure that since I will probably be linking to it a lot I should discuss my views of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a great example of Web 2.0 in which the users manage content and interact to create a dynamic webpage which grows at a very fast rate and hopefully self-corrects.
When I do research Wikipedia is my starting point so that I can get a usually very strong overview of the subject. Then Wiki’s best attribute reveals itself, its links and references. I can follow these links to get a very detailed look at the subject and much of the time it even links to academic sources.
In Don Tapscott’s and Anthony Williams’ book Wikinomics, they state that the accuracy of wikipedia is equal or superior to a standard encyclopedia, yet it has some trust issues because anyone can edit it. I have been trying to figure out to what degree we should trust wiki. Most of us would not cite it in an academic paper, but is it reputable enough to settle a bet about the population of the UK or would you go to the WorldFact Book about that? Were do we draw the line? I would like your comments.
6 comments:
I agree with using Wikipedia in conducting preliminary research and to get quick facts, but using it in a paper or project is unacceptable. One of my TA's thanked me for being the only person in my class of around 100 to not reference Wikipedia in their project, which frankly made me a bit sad. As you know, I am on Wikipedia probably for at least an hour total a day and I believe I have gained more random, but oddly useful, knowledge from there than any other source...I mean, where else would I learn about topics such as Romanian/Catholic relations, fast food CEO's, and current Boeing aircraft production as well as catch up on TV shows that I do not have the time nor attention span to watch?
I would draw the line at referencing it in a paper. As for a bet, as long as it cites a reputable source (which I would cross-check), I would say that it works.
I love Wikipedia generally, and have spent many an afternoon digesting the entire history of China or the phenomenon of pearl tea, but it certainly has its drawbacks.
Personally, I try to limit my use of Wikipedia to recreation. Wikipedia is a great vehicle to aggregate information and measure the collective wisdom of its users; however, while its openness for editing can be construed as a virtue, which in many cases it is, it can also be a vice in that it can be used for deviant purposes. I must say I myself am guilty of that; when I insisted that Green Party Presidential Nominee, Black Power Activist, anti-semite, and former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney was clinically insane, my post was swiftly removed. [She really is insane though, as far as I am concerned].
Furthermore, because a good wikipedia page references all its sources anyways, I see no reason to reference wikipedia itself. It is better to go directly to the source, which is likely more reputable.
Finally, my largest qualm about Wikipedia that it usually leans (dramatically) to the left, which I think is a result in part of its many self-glorifying, urbane European socialist editors. I recently was reading up on Ernesto "Che" Guevara, the Marxist mass-murderer and advocate of particularly bloody proletarian revolution, and the article seemed to fawn over him. The entire thing glorified his memory with wanton disregard for the human toll this deranged individual left in his wake. When I tried to edit it in places to reduce the degree of its veritable Marxist bias, edits which were by no means as controversial as the praise the article heaped on Guevara, I was quickly rebuffed.
The end.
I think it is very interesting how many groups have actively taken over some wikipedia websites. I was watching a c-span program about a group of climatologists who have been slandered on wiki because they presented data contradicting global warming. Anytime they tried to correct their records the changes were instantly reversed. I do not believe in Global Warming but I do not think that my side should slander contrary opinions.
So i have a nameless friend who works at a nameless journal (but one of the largest/most popular journals, if not the largest most popular journal on the planet), who got a bunch of people fired a few weeks ago because they were plagerizing wiki for use in their discussion topics. I mean come on now how hard is it to use primary literature?
Post a Comment