Wikipedia, like Google, has been getting a lot of attention lately. And if you're a frequent Wikipedia user like me, better read this story from the Guardian Unlimited and this one from the New York Times. Both stories tell of how a free encyclopedia like Wikipedia is prone to errors. LISNews has other stories on Wikipedia, too.
I use Wikipedia as a reference source for quick facts but not when I'm looking for in-depth information because I know that most of the entires posted there are not written by experts. I recall a story I read about a Wikipedia contributor who lives in a trailer filled with books in a desert in New Mexico. He writes and edits articles related to the arts and on particular genres and artists. While I admire the man for his passion for the subject, I certainly do not consider him to be an expert on it .
In the New York Times story, Jimmy Wales, the brains behind Wikipedia said that they will be putting in place mechanisms whereby entries would be reviewed and rated for value by readers and experts. I guess this is the best thing Wikipedia can do under the circumstances while maintaining their present system. The last thing they would want to happen is to be called elitist like the Encyclopedia Britannica.
My professional advise: use Wikipedia intelligently, check the facts, and use it as one source and not the only source of information.
No comments:
Post a Comment