Over on Web4Lib, there’s been a bit of discussion based on this article, in which a school librarian says that Wikipedia, a popular online encyclopedia built by a community of web users, is not an authoritative source and is therefore untrustworthy.
Some of the questions raised on Web4Lib were: who makes the determination that a source is authoritative? How do they reach that conclusion? Can a community-built encyclopedia be equated with the latest World Book?
Wikipedia is immensely popular at the community college where I work and students use it all the time. Do other librarians use/recommend/hate/revile this resource?
one problem w/ wiki: citing an entry
This is from the entry:
Citing Wikipedia
“The citation should normally include the full date and time of the article revision you are using, since the page may well change radically between you viewing it and somebody following your reference.” (my emphasis)
I would hazard that a source that is inherently unstable is not a good source. That said, I use it all the time for brief overviews or general information on a topic, which is a situation where citing is usually not needed.
Also, a “regular” encyclopedia is just as much a “community-built” entity – it’s just that the community is an awful lot smaller, and the requirements for membership involve an awful lot more than hitting the “edit” button.
Re:one problem w/ wiki: citing an entry
(Disclaimer: I edit at Wikipedia.)
As wary as I am about wikis, Wikipedia has done an amazingly good job at keeping its information accurate. Bad info just doesn’t stay for very long; too many editors (and I don’t mean dozens, I mean many hundreds) are watching the Recent Changes lists (both global and personal) like hawks. Vandals get bored, and clueless (but well-meaning) editors tend to learn in short order why their erroneous edits are always being reverted or fixed. 😉
community & authority
Traditional notions of authority have been shifting for librarians since the advent of the Internet. Here’s an example:
I talked to a consultant to the Alabama state library who was there *before* the Gates grants were implemented. (Alabama was the first state to get Gates computers.) She noted that reference really changed for small and rural libraries who have no resources to buy reference materials, even encyclopedias. She had one library in mind – they had a 10 year old copy of World Book, with only the ‘N’ volumn missing. This was their reference collection. After the Gates grant, they could suddenly offer the world at an Internet terminal to their entire community.
I asked this consultant if she thought that digital resouces had called traditional authority into question. She said (paraphrased) “yes, I guess it does, and I’d have to say that it makes me a little uncomfortable, but look at all we’ve gained by it!”
I have argued elsewhere that traditional authority will continually be questioned and shifted around, not only with the Internet, but with Web-enabled dynamic content production, such as the project at Wikipedia. In some cases, community-built (larger, dispersed, online, independent of commerce) resources are cheaper, and more relevant, than traditional sources. I’m not saying they are across the board better. Just sometimes more relevant, and almost always cheaper, accessible through the Internet.
I’m anxious to see how our profession continues to sort this out!
As for wikipedia: I love it, and use it all the time. When I talk with patrons about it, I make sure they know what kind of resource it is, and how the authority associated is established differently than other sources. Authority, nonetheless established, in my view.
As a side note, check out this collaboratively built community for library staff, where all the content and discussions are collaboratively developed by the community there:
http://webjunction.org
We’ve discussed authority & community on our message boards there.
More interesting Wikipedia stuff
More interesting talk about Wikipedia is linked by Jessamyn West.
Of particular interest is this interaction with the Syracuse Post-Standard reporter who wrote the original item on Wikipedia. He refused to consider the possibility that Wikipedia might be a resource worth looking at (even criticially), and called it “repugnant” and “dangerous.”