“Wikipedia is the greatest thing since sliced bread.”
“Wikipedia is completely unreliable and should be kept far away from students.”
This pretty much sums up the two extremes of thought regarding Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. I will try to write this post without exposing my own bias on the subject. (Can you see my poker face?)
Just the facts
- Wikipedia began in March 2000.
- As of March 2008, it has approximately 10 million articles in 253 languages. (For purposes of comparison, the 2007 Encyclopedia Britannica has 65,700 articles.)
- Registered Wikipedia users can create new articles, but anyone can edit existing articles (e.g. they can be edited anonymously).
- Wikipedia uses vandal-repair bots to scan the site and to repair malicious changes to entries, but it also relies on its community of people, Wikipedians, to do the same.
The Controversy
- Since there is no peer-review process to validate the information, many people simply stay away from Wikipedia, viewing the site as unreliable.
- Michael Gorman, the controversial past-president of the American Library Association, condemned Wikipedia (and Google), stating that academics who endorse the use of Wikipedia are “the intellectual equivalent of a dietician who recommends a steady diet of Big Macs with everything.”
- Wikipedia is becoming a common sources for journalists, academics, lawyers, and students.
Just for Laughs
- The Onion – the satirical print and online newspaper (if you haven’t read it, you are missing a weekly chortle) – published an article titled, Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years of American Independence.
- Michael Scott of the TV show The Office (if you don’t watch The Office, you are missing a prolonged weekly chortle) says, Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information.
So how do you deal with Wikipedia? I’d like to know what you think and if you use it either on a personal level or for research and work.
[Oh, BTW, when I wrote the phrase "since sliced bread" above, it got me wondering where that phrase came from. According to Wikipedia, this phrase became popular when Wonder Bread first mass-marketed sliced bread in the 1930s, touting their innovation.]
Hey hey!
Yes wikipedia is indeed the best thing since sliced bread!! Good job on giving a neutral account of it…. It still has a long way to go (A large majority of the 10 million articles are not “super awesome informative articles”, but I personally believe it is going to become bigger than Jesus…er I mean “the internet” as “the internet” was initially heralded as a source of info and education to people all around the world….. and now it serves that purpose but it has a shitload of other functions as well….wikipedia will hence move on IMO..
Of course, as an encyclopedia…. it should not be used solely as a reference but rather as an introduction to a topic you don’t know much about… It can be used for ideas as well.. but you have to make sure you back whatever you write about with published journals/references/news articles and hence wikipedia in that regard doesnt count…
Anyway keep up the great work
Cheers!
Ps. You stole my theme!! THIEF! HAHA JK
Thanks for your thoughts on Wikipedia. I find it no different than using the Encyclopedia Britannica in that NO encyclopedia should be used in college level work. It is mearly a starting point. In the case of Britannica who has articles authored by known experts in each field, the bibliography is a starting point to do a “fan search”. To look up the authors cited in the article, and then use the reference list in those sources to expand your search.
This same technique can be used at Wikipedia, only the difference is closer attention to detail must be used in evaluating the sources and references wikipedians are using to support their articles. Not all of them may be academic or pass a validity and reliability evaluation, many may be journalistic in quality. Information literacy is a very important skill to apply and hone when using Wikipedia.
The comments about Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia are interesting.
Encyclopaedia Britannica did not think that an open source product like Wikipedia would significantly challenge the credibility of its brand. They were dead wrong and Encyclopaedia Britannica’s staff seriously misread the global market. They are now very concerned about the widespread use of a free Wikipedia vs their paid subscription model. From a corporate and financial perspective, Encyclopaedia Britannica is in significant trouble.
It will be interesting to see if Encyclopaedia Britannica survives, but recent indications do not look good. It is the combination of a) the success of Wikipedia and b) improved search engines that has put financial pressure on Encyclopedia Britannica over recent years. Many libraries, schools & individuals are questioning the need to pay for sets of expensive books, or to subscribe to Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, when the content is free on the internet, and much more comprehensive.