Question of the Week
Two weeks ago, the Question of the Week was about books different people were reading. Pensive Ro picked up on the idea and posted the question on her own blog (which you should all visit several times a day until she reaches her 20,000 hits). In the comments section, I mentioned Wikipedia and that sparked a discussion of its own.
Personally, I love Wikipedia. I probably access it more often than any other website. I even made a game out of it which I continued to post to the blog long after it became clear that most people didn’t want to play it. Wikipedia is great for getting background information, or exploring a topic you know very little about. It’s great for learning about new topics and exploring just to see what’s out there.
I would not use Wikipedia to learn more about an area that I’m already an expert in, and I would never cite Wikipedia as a source. You never really know who the author is, and the articles are in constant flux. I wouldn’t respect any argument that relied on information from Wikipedia to make its case. This Onion article is way over the top, granted, but it does make a few valid points.
I was giving a presentation once, and said (after giving the above argument) that there had been studies done that demonstrate that Wikipedia is just as reliable of a source as the Encyclopedia Britannica. Someone asked me what my source for that was, and I couldn’t resist answering “Wikipedia” though I had heard it in legitimate news outlets as well.
Fine word, legitimate. We know that news sources have bias. Could it be that Wikipedia’s negotiated definition of reality is more objective than any one source can be? Perhaps. And perhaps this is part of a larger trend of how knowledge is now constructed.
For their part, the Wikipedia folks recognize the limitations of their medium and have launched a sister project, Citizendium, which is a Wikipedia-like online interactive encyclopedia that requires contributors to use their real names and is given “gentle expert oversight” by Ph.Ds. Full disclosure: I have a Ph.D. in Shakespeare Teachery, and I can tell you that not all Ph.Ds agree on everything. Or anything, really. You’d think it would work on the level of an encyclopedia, but even many supposed facts are in dispute.
Speaking of Ph.Ds, something interesting just happened over at Weblogg-ed. Will Richardson posted an article about a new degree in Social Computing which he thinks is worthy of ridicule. Some interpreted this as a rebuke of higher education in general, and a fierce debate was sparked. Richardson then issued a clarification. Definitely worth checking out.
What’s your opinion of Wikipedia and the changing nature of authority?
April 9th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
there was an article that was sent out to a number of librarian listservs, and worth checking out: The Intellectual in the Infosphere.” it addresses the underlying issue of what you’ve been discussing so far: what passes for reliable sources of information for the public at large…the “wisdom of the crowds” vs. the experts.
http://chronicle.com.libproxy.newschool.edu/weekly/v53/i27/27b00601.htm
i’m not apprehensive about using wikipedia as a source, as long as i find other sources to back it up or verify their citations. hopefully, citizendium can help with that. but i don’t think it’ll resolve the issue entirely. i don’t think these wales projects were initially meant to be authoritative as much as just a tool to open up dialogue about a subject – it’s democratic information sharing at its best.
A couple of my classmates went to see jimmy wales do a presentation on Wikia Search (which is in its infancy but can be seen here: http://search.wikia.com/wiki/Search_Wikia) at NYU back in january and couldn’t stop talking about how his vision of the internet could work- as a universal information sharing tool- transparent, participatory and free. a brave new world indeed.
April 9th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
I absolutely love wikipedia and think it has already surpassed google as a more direct and accessible search tool. Although some poeple claim that its accuracy is questionable, I think thats ridiculous. If its written down, then it has to be true.
April 10th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
I’m in 100% agreement with DeLisa (and others above). Like ANY media source, Wiki should be questioned and double checked, and the presence of suggested other sources/footnotes provides a good starting point for any true researcher. The thing I really like about Wiki is its democratic structure. We all know that history books often (if not always) only present one side of a story, and that the same establishment that approves a story version can decades later retract their endorsement of it. “History” is PROVEN to be unreliable and changeable. Wiki quite simply is the physical embodiment of the truth about archival writing. It’s HONEST in its presentation of information.
Also, the print world by necessity must choose what to include and what to omit in their encyclopedias. Wiki is free to include pop culture as well as established subjects “of merit,” and is not forced to remove “outdated” references (which could actually prove valuable to some researchers) in favor of newer ones with more immediately viable content.
Wiki is not perfect, but I would argue that no similar printed sources are either, and at least Wiki has opportunity for immediate response/addition/correction – and most importantly, difference of opinion.
Insofaras Brian’s tongue-in-cheek comment above (“If it’s written down it must be true”) – there is actually great truth in that statement, for all its humor. Truth can be, and often is, subjective, since it is governed by the truthteller’s knowledge, whatever that may be. Wiki theoretically allows for “all truths,” allowing the end user to make his/her own determination.
April 10th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
I think that Wikipedia is a great introductory source of info on any topic. It’s my first stop. While yes – there can be some inconsistencies and credibility issues with Wikipedia, at least you KNOW that about Wikipedia and take it with the appropriate grain of salt. Do any of us know anything really about the people who put together the EB? Do the real experts apply to contribute to EB or are the begged to contribute and they end up with what they can get? Whereas with Wiki, any expert can add their expertise or research quickly and easily. Here’s more of what I appreciate about Wiki:
– There’s ample accessibility for the disagreeing PhD’s to ALL present their views instead of just presenting the view of the PhD they happened to have access to or hire.
– The articles that have unverified information or neutrality issues have bold disclosures as such.
– Duh – if there are no footnotes then chances are there’s no back up to that info. In fact, the best thing about Wiki to me is all the links to the back up sources.
– What’s the likelihood that EB would publish an article on say….the Buffyverse or Fugazi or Peeps? Um. None. Wiki provides ample opportunity for scholarship of the absurd. Awesome.
April 12th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
If I want to hear a bunch of BS I don’t need to go to Wikipedia. I’ll ask someone at work or the guy at Starbucks. When it’s time to find info, I want a real source I can count on.
April 13th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Ha! I used to say something similar: “If I wanted to read something an undergraduate copied out of an encyclopedia, I’d read my students’ papers.”
Increasingly, though, I’m finding that the sources we’re told we can count on are full of BS, and I end up going to Wikipedia to see if I can get more than one side to the story.
But I do agree with you that it is not a source, and shouldn’t be used as one. It’s more of a space for negotiating meaning. But I think those negotiations can get closer to the truth than experts who we expect to deliver it on a silver platter.
This is partly why I believe that the questions are more important than the answers when I’m trying to learn about something.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Did you see this? http://pewresearch.org/pubs/460/wikipedia
April 25th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
No, I hadn’t seen that. It’s very interesting. It doesn’t surprise me that Wikipedia is so popular. It’s become second nature for me to go check something out there.
Of course, popularity doesn’t necessarily mean reliability. What’s the top rated cable news channel again?