Using Wikipedia

I know this is kind of old news to some, but there has been some serious bashing of Wikipedia over the past few months. A columnist in the Syracuse (NY) Post-Standard wrote an article citing comments from a high school librarian about the inherant unreliability of Wikipedia as an information source. There then ensued a sometimes heated discussion between Mike Masnick of techdirt and the reporter (who appears to be a real piece of work and characterized Wikipedia as "outrageous," "repugnant" and "dangerous").

I have been a contributor to Wikipedia for a while now, and I certainly believe it can be trusted. I have worked very hard to ensure my contributions are varifiable and, whenever possible, well documented. I know for a fact that while I may not be the authoratative expert on the subjects I am writing about, I have all of my facts straight and in some cases I am even able contribute independantly verifible information that no one else could reasonably assemble. I also know that if any information is disputed, it will normally be well documented in the discussion section of the page I am viewing. But would I trust Wikipedia as a sole source of information? Of course not! Skepticism is both healthy and an essential component of sound scholarship.

I recommend that any use of Wikipedia be tempered with the use of at least two other resources. One that I recommend highly is the use of The Columbia Encyclopedia, which bartleby.com has online at http://www.bartleby.com/65/. Personally, I would make my second resource a Google search on the topic, and then evaluate the results to see which are best.

Posted by Ray Trygstad | Category: Rant | 12:58 PM