I am not ashamed to admit that I read Wikipedia.
I may be in the minority of public opinion here, but I think that's because Wikipedia is an easy target for criticism, supported by only one claim: anyone can edit it.
But that doesn't necessarily make it a bad source. In fact, it is precisely because of this that Wikipedia so reliable. Consider: a published text is a static resource. It can not be edited any further, and its sources, while usually printed in the footnotes, are often out of reach for the average reader to do his own fact checking or verification. However, a well developed Wikipedia entry will reference numerous source, many of which are linked and can be immediately verified with the click of a mouse.
Perhaps more importantly, because anyone can edit the information in Wikipedia, errors of commission or omission are easily (and usually quickly) rectified. And any changes made clearly recorded in the page's history for more discerning readers to review. You can not get that with a printed text. The book that sits before you is, at the moment, being viewed by only one set of eyes. If errors are found by another reader elsewhere, they will not be pointed out to you and your copy will not be corrected. Plus you have no way of knowing the methods used by the author and editors to determine what information to include or exclude in the text (just look at the travesty taking place with the Texas School Board and their history textbooks!). In fact, if you’re not familiar with the subject of the text, you may not even know what information was left out. With Wikipedia, if the entry is of a controversial nature, or there’s a suspicion of bias, it is flagged, and a link to the relevant discussion is provided (Take, for example, this entry about the 1953 Iranian Coup d’etat)
In the end, the army of Wikipedia contributors who work to improve the website's content far outweighs the legion of vandals who occasionally scrawl sophomoric graffiti, or write biased entries.
Up with Wikipedia, the people's encyclopedia! (But don’t be a sheep – verify the citations and think critically)
Posts
3 comments:
I love Wikipedia. It isn't one I usually use, but I do use it. I think it's a great place to start--and for quick info, you can't beat it. What I really love is the list of resources at the bottom of the articles, with LINKS! I think it's a marvelous tool. Like all tools, it needs to be used appropriately, but to call it useless or harmful is way off base. There, my $0.02 as an information professional :)
I use wikipedia for everything. It's extremely crediable (especially if you check the citations...) and it's a large deal of information upfront. I'm glad you agree, Aranow.
About five minutes ago i quoted this post to give to Mr. Wolosek...and I realised something when I cited you.
I've spelled your last name wrong every time I've ever wrote it. In retrospect, this is pretty funny...but I'm sorry "Mr. Aranow".
Post a Comment