Article in the New York Times. When I saw the title of the article I almost didn’t read the article because I know Wikipedia locks articles that are heavily used or controversial. The angle that the article took was interesting.
Excerpt: IN the 24 hours before the McCain campaign put the finishing touches on its surprise announcement Friday that Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska would be the Republican vice presidential candidate, one Wikipedia user was putting the finishing touches on her biography on the site.
Politics
I did not post this article for the politics. What interested me about this article as a librarian was a blend of the issues of information literacy and control of information.
From the information literacy angle I think that Wikipedia is a source that you at least have to question.
From the information control angle Wikipedia is interesting in that articles get locked for editing when they get very popular. For an article that is going to have millions of views whoever is able to get in and do the last minute editing is going to get to spread their views a long way. This is especially true if people are not using their information literacy skills and just assuming that what is in the article is correct.
Wiki editors becoming more vigilant
Wikipedia is evolving a cadre of semi-professional editors who are becoming more vigilant about cracking down on edit-wars and vandalism. The downside is some of them have turned into “Notability Nazis”, especially those of the “Deletionist” as opposed to “Inclusionist” schools of thought. NPOV is a good policy in theory, but the devil’s always in the details, and sometimes the results aren’t pretty.
Still, because of its…flexibility…Wikipedia will always remain a somewhat unstable resource that ought not be cited, or if it is cited then include the date accessed.
Wiki Editors are always mindful about articles dealing with breaking news…same was true during the 2004 Presidential campaign.