Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for October, 2009

site: Wikipedia – by Wikipedia
site: Academic Papers on Wikipedia – by Wikipedia
site: Wikipedia Watch – critical look at Wikipedia
site: Principles and Patterns of Social Knowledge Applications – a paper on Wikipedia
clip: Trailer 1 from “Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story”

I think you have worked out by now that I tend to use Wikipedia links to help explain jargon, conceptual and technical words and issues. So, in principal, I’m a fan of using Wikipedia.

Where this gets interesting, though, is siting Wikipedia as an academic source of information.

Do we trust Wikipedia – which is produced by ‘the masses’?
Or do we disown Wikipedia in favour of academically peer-reviewed works – therefore, produced by ‘the few and elite’?

My own view is that with ALL sources, it needs to be measured – for bias, for its own sources, for relevancy, for reliability. I like using Wikipedia as a first step in research, it tells me the basics and then I dig further into the sources mentioned at the end of the article.

In my own study, the academics will not accept Wikipedia being sited, so I leave it out of the bibliography.

– That being all tertiary… should Wikipedia be accepted as source for Primary or Secondary schools?

– Is Wikipedia more up-to-date (and so ‘correct’) then those huge collections of encyclopedia that collect dust in the reserve section of the library – and requires yearly ‘updates’ that never get used?

– Wikipedia is certainly more accessable then other encyclopedia, but is that a good thing?

– Is the collective might always right when it comes to ‘truth’ – or does that lead to being revisionist? is being revisionist wrong?

Read Full Post »