David Runciman writes about the wonders of wikipedia in the London Review of Books. (Apparently he lives and works in the future, because this article is dated May 28th).
I was not able to fit Adult Reference into my library school class schedule, unfortunately. However, some of my friends did and talked about the lively discussions that occurred there about using wikipedia as a reference source. As you may guess, it is a total no-no for a librarian. We're supposed to be information literacy advocates, and that means choosing a reference source that is edited in some verifiable way, or written by an author whose knowledge base can be verified. If someone calls me on the phone today and asks what the weather's like, I am compelled to give them a source for it, even if I was just outside.
But that doesn't mean I don't use wikipedia. You can get things there you won't be able to find anywhere else, or if you can, it will take you more time. And the article has some interesting theories about how the editing process at wikipedia actually triumphs over the theory that "bad money always follows good" (I'm paraphrasing). It's worth reading.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wikipedia can be a great foot in the door, too, like when somebody asks me about something I've never heard of. Good research wouldn't end there, obviously, but there's no point NOT using something, if it's there. It keeps getting better, too, which is interesting/scary.
ReplyDelete