RE: Wikipedia?

["Lisa Dittrich" <lrdittrich@aamc.org>]

Like Karl, I am old fashioned--why else would I be in the world 
of scholarly journal publishing?  However, I DO think his 
attitude toward Wikipedia is old fashioned.  Only time will tell, 
but as one symbol of Web 2.0 this resource is not going away, and 
younger researchers will see this and other interactive resources 
as the norm.  The Web is becoming more fluid, as are notions of 
expertise and authority.  Again, time will tell--but I can't see 
such resources disappearing any time soon, nor do I see anyone's 
pleas for regulation of this content being heard except by those 
of us who prefer our content rather static and carrying some seal 
of approval.

Lisa Dittrich
Managing Editor
Academic Medicine
Washington, DC 20037
lrdittrich@aamc.org
www.academicmedicine.org

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Jan Velterop
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 7:13 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Wikipedia?

This does remind me of the story of the two watches. One of them 
tells you the absolutely correct time, twice a day; the other 
never tells you the correct time. Which watch do you trust? It 
helps if you know that the first watch is broken and the second 
just 5 minutes fast.

The comprehensiveness and up-to-date-ness of Wikipedia 
compensates for its small inaccuracies, especially if you can't 
find at all what you're looking for in traditional reference 
sources (which are by no means flawless, either). With few 
exceptions, is it not better to be somewhat informed than 
absolutely ignorant?

Jan Velterop


On 18 Feb 2007, at 21:09, Karl Bridges wrote:

> Never has a single metaphor of mine created such a stir.
>
> The article by Chesney you cite is intriguing, but it concludes
> that 13 percent of the articles contain mistakes.  The difference
> between the means of the articles credibility was only
> significant at the 10 percent level -- based on the responses of
> 55 people in total. I'd also point out that the article was based
> on the responses of graduate students -- who, as the literature
> seems clear on, have different interests and information seeking
> behaviors than undergraduates.  I'd also point out that they may
> very well be, as Europeans, more sophisticated and better
> educated than the typical American undergraduate. I'm not saying
> they are.  I'm just saying we know little or nothing, from the
> article, about the survey group -- their education level,
> academic interests, level of information literacy training -- all
> of which may have impacted the results.  In short, I'm just not
> sure we can take the conclusions of this article and make an
> overall generalization from it.
>
> The history of Wikipedia is interesting as is the fact that
> people are attempting other projects similar to it but that
> information is irrelevant to the question of whether Wikipedia is
> accurate today.  You're mixing apples and oranges here -- if I
> may be allowed another metaphor.
>
> As a professional reference librarian I still feel it would be
> inappropriate to recommend the use of Wikipedia to my users. For
> the fundamental reason that it does not, as it currently exists,
> in my view, meet acceptable standards for accuracy.  It certainly
> is an interesting model of distributed data collection, but
> that's about as far as I could go.  In particular, I think the
> fact checking on Wikipedia is questionable -- an issue that the
> article by Chesney doesn't address.
>
> In the end I guess I just wonder what I'm supposed to compare
> Wikipedia to if not our traditional reference sources -- printed
> and electronic???  Either it's as good a resource as a
> traditional encyclopedia or it isn't.  And if it isn't don't I
> have a professional obligation to steer my patrons away from it
> towards the better source?
>
> Karl Bridges
> University of Vermont