[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Wikipedia?
- To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu, bernies@uillinois.edu, Jean@@econtentstrategies.com
- Subject: Re: Wikipedia?
- From: JBedord@aol.com
- Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:10:45 EST
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Let me give a different perspective on Wikipedia. I teach online searching to graduate students at SJSU School and Library and Information Services. My students and I find Wikipedia to be quite useful as a "tool", not an authoritative source per se. In general, students (and patrons/users), regardless of educational level, struggle with synonyms in using search to "find" information -- it's inherent in the messiness of linguistics! We find that Wikipedia quickly gives a context to words, which can then be used in searching other sources. I find it particularly useful in the world of emerging technologies which is constantly coining new acronyms and using confusing terminology to mask reinvention of concepts. Wikipedia also shines in the area of popular culture, but I wouldn't trust it for medical information. The mantra is that it can be a useful a starting point, but always, always, always check multiple sources (but isn't the same advice we've always given?) Warm regards, Jean Bedord Internet Business Strategist www.bedord.com Phone: 408-257-9221 / 408-252-5220 Fax: 408-252-8078 Email: jean @ bedord.com / jbedord @ aol.com
- Prev by Date: RE: Data on circulation of books
- Next by Date: Re: Wikipedia?
- Previous by thread: RE: Wikipedia?
- Next by thread: Re: Wikipedia?
- Index(es):