Don't listen to anyone who tells you otherwise. In a recent study, wikipedia was matched up against the likes of Encyclopedia Brittanica. Wikipedia articles contained four serious errors while Brittanica contained three. Further research shows that when matched up directly against E.B, wikipedia prevails as the most accurate.
What do librarians think of Wiki? In 2006, librarians from the Library Journal concluded that the free encyclopedia has their stamp of approval. Despite this, only 400 or so articles have referenced wikipedia in print.
News and media organizations and publications have even gone as far to prohibit employees from looking at wikipedia for fact checks.
The main criticisms of wikipedia are not on whether the website is reliable or not, but rather on the concept and contributors. Since "anyone" can edit articles, the topic of article bias is immediately discussed.
Speaking of "anyone," highly trafficked and controversial pages often prohibit unregistered users from editing.
Someday (soon hopefully), wikipedia be looked upon as a reliable source. Right now, on August 1st of 2007, the website is credible and has won the approval of critics, however, some (like teachers) are completely oblivious to this fact which means we won't be able to reference the media machine in any writing we do.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Wikipedia is Reliable
Labels:
controversy,
Glen Maganzini,
wikipedia
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments are valued greatly. Please adhere to the decorum on the "First time here?" page. Comments that are in violation of any of the rules will be deleted without notice.
3/11 Update - No Moderation
*Non-anonymous commenting is preferred to avoid mix-ups. Anonymous comments are, at the behest of management, more likely to be deleted than non-anonymous comments.