listersgirl | (no subject)

Entry tags:

(no subject)

There was a very interesting article in the Guardian on Monday about whether you can trust the information in Wikipedia. They contacted experts in various fields and asked them to review the entries in those fields for accuracy and completeness.

Can You Trust Wikipedia?

I'm unsure how I feel about Wikipedia and the idea that anyone can add or edit information. On the one hand, it has the potential to be entirely current and constantly updating itself, which is excellent. But there's no controls, no guarantee that the information is accurate, or has even been researched at all. The potential for misuse is incredible - someone could deliberately plant false information.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

My question is, well for consistency's sake, that's all fine and good, but what if my (imaginary) 10 year old accesses a wikipedia entry at the very moment it contains incorrect information? There is the biggest problem.

That was my exact question, too. And because things do change so frequently, there's no way to verify that the information was ever there in the first place.

except that there is. let's take an article cited, the ts eliot one. click on "discussion" and you'll get a run-down of issues with the article, click on "history" to get the change-log.

(i mean, i have a lot of other issues too. like, why is the ten year old only using wikipedia as a source? that school librarian has got to wonder why he or she is bothering to pay for freakin' expensive electronic encyclopedias & databases, let alone maintaining a paper one. why is it not okay for a source to be created by many people now, when that's basically how the oed was constructed? why do we think just because something's in print it's correct? there are errors in print encyclopedias all the time, and you're certainly not going to find a changelog there. and finally, what free web resource should we be using instead?)

me, i *heart* wikipedia for a quick overview. it gives me the outline and the keywords. or if i just want to know when eliot was born i can get that too. it's a jumping-off point. and that should be true of traditional encyclopedia articles as well. wikipedia's still in development, it is aware of its issues, and i'm not certain it's entirely fair to blame it for the way people use it. as it says in the faq: But Wikipedia cannot be perfect. There is almost certainly inaccurate information in it, somewhere, which has not yet been discovered to be wrong. Therefore, if you are using Wikipedia for important research or a school project, you should always verify the information somewhere else — just like you should with all sources.

i particularly like that final bit. darn right! and actually the entire school faq is worth a peek.

That's good - I didn't know that the changelog existed. And of course there are errors in print resources as well.

I think for me what it comes down to for me is not that there are multiple authors -- most encyclopedias are like that, and that's the way it should be -- but that there doesn't seem to be any way to verify who wrote things or what their credentials are. Obviously, it doesn't mean that the people writing for Wikipedia are any more or less knowledgeable than the people writing for any other reference source, print or online, but that I don't know that, because I don't know who they are. I want to know who they are. I want to be able to look at the article on Beethoven and check what else that person has written.

I mean, whatever, I use it, I think it's great, but mostly as a jumping off point, like you said, or if I need a general idea about something. Because, exactly like they said in the bit you quoted up there, if it's something important, I'm always going to find a second source.

(I don't blame Wikipedia for people who are going to blindly believe everything they read there. I just worry, given what a massive phenomenon it is and the proven trend these days of students to get all their information off the internet without citing or questioning the integrety of the source, that it will become the only authority used.)

well, you can do that to a point. the changelog includes user names, and so sometimes there's a profile and tracking of what other articles they've contributed to.

and if the teachers are willing to accept work that references it as the only authority, that too is a problem outside of wikipedia. there needs to be more education about the integrity of sources. hey! looks like a job for librarians!

God, for real! The world would be a better place if librarians were in charge.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

(no subject)

Re: Where I expand on wikipedia

Where I get all defensive for a moment and then flame out quickly

Re: Where I get all defensive for a moment and then flame out quickly

Re: Where I get all defensive for a moment and then flame out quickly

Re: Where I get all defensive for a moment and then flame out quickly