Comments on: wiki or won’t he

By: Gax

Gax — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:44:27 +0000

One of the best things about Wikipedia for me is that it catalogs things that traditional encyclopedias would not. Such as this gem about the "hogshead" which features the conversion of Grandpa Simpson's famous quote about his car's fuel economy.

By: Smitty

Smitty — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 00:18:30 +0000

I use and contribute to Wikipedia frequently; I wouldn’t contribute if I didn’t think the Wiki was worth something. Like other responders have said, the wiki is not the sort of resource you would want to use alone. But a decent wikipedia article has outside references, and a reasonably intelligent person should be able to parse the articles that are blatantly point-of-view from those that are reasonably encyclopedic in tone.
Of course, there are plenty of not-even-reasonably-intelligent people in the world, and I suppose that what the real concern is–what are the stupid people to do, if they can’t trust Wikipedia? I’d argue that stupid people can learn a thing or two from the Wiki, and even if everything they learn isn’t actually true, they’re still better off than the folks that learn everything from television news stations.

By: Sticks of Fire: a Tampa blog » more on wikipedia

Sticks of Fire: a Tampa blog » more on wikipedia — Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:19:45 +0000

[...] We recently asked if you trusted Wikipedia. The Guardian (UK) asked the same question, and published the answers. [...]

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 21:39:31 +0000

I like Wiki it as a quick ref or as a starting point; however, I would not use it as a single source on a “serious” research paper or news story.

By: Devon

Devon — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 14:36:12 +0000

Rember the quote from American Splendor:
“Is she smart?”
“She’s average.”
“Average is dumb!”

By: Sarah

Sarah — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 00:53:43 +0000

I’m voting….yes! Acceptable in my books!

By: Courtney

Courtney — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 22:50:48 +0000

Yes, ANYONE is great if ANYONE knows what they are talking about, but unfortunately not EVERYONE does..

By: CT

CT — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 22:32:25 +0000

Yeah, I would double-check; but in that case, why use Wikipedia in the first place? Save some times and go to a traditional vetted source.

Bottom line for me: If you want to use Wikipedia as a starting point, fine. But don’t even think about citing it as a source in your final report, because I’m going to fling it right back at you and tell you to find alternate confirmation on that.

By: tim

tim — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:46:05 +0000

The problem with Wikipedia is that ANYONE can jump on to an entry and add information.

And every change to every entry is logged and easily accessed by a link at the top of the entry. We should be so lucky as to have access to the research methods of a given “mainstream” source.

By: Courtney

Courtney — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 19:59:24 +0000

Hey,
I am in grad school to get my masters in library science.. this question has come up a lot. Librarians and librarians need to know how to evaluate a website, just like any other resource you would use. You may have a favorite dictionary, cookbook, or friend whom you think is more authoritative than others.
The problem with Wikipedia is that ANYONE can jump on to an entry and add information. Would I use a wikipedia source in the “works cited” page? No way. Do I periodically go to wikipedia for casual research? Very often.
Am I hoping that these recent news articles will illuminate the employement situation at Wikipedia.. of course, I need a job!