The last time I picked up an encyclopedia, I was in high school. I don't even remember what I looked at, but I do remember that it was a World Book Encyclopedia. They seem to have cornered the market on library resources for secondary education. It is now over a decade ago that I last touched a paper encyclopedia. Our current pluralist conceptualization of information has spawned Wikipedia, the ever changing, not quite always reliable source of information about all things. As a professor, I am conflicted about allowing its use as a source of information. A year ago, Wiki ate my favorite website for electoral institutions information. Electionworld.org fell prey to the instant accessibility of Wiki. I felt sheepish when I told my classes this semester to look up electoral systems information on Wiki. I told them "you can use it for [this information], but please don't tell your other professors that I condone its use as a scholarly source." Obviously I do not encourage its use, but why not look at it to get a start on finding higher quality information? More importantly, what happens when a reliable source becomes part of the monster?
What differentiates Wiki from the World Book? Obviously content can change very quickly on Wiki and it is reviewed and modified constantly by interested parties. Who wrote the World Book, and why should I trust them? The librarians did, so should I?
This question has hit more closely to home as I write my encyclopedia article. It will appear in a hard-bound, true-to-life, paper encyclopedia (that is if I can finish it in time). Yes, they still make them. Yes, these people know about the information on the internet. Yes, they invited me to write an article. But what makes me more suited to writing an encyclopedia article than the multitudes of people who contribute to Wiki? With the exception of my degree, I haven't figure that out. There are editors who will correct major errors, so there is a check in the system.
It is scary to me that someone may pick up a book, find my entry, and consider it trustworthy because it came from a paper encyclopedia.
A true antique in the age of Wiki.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Investing today for tenure later...
6 comments:
I have had several professors discount the reliability of Wikipedia, while some see the value in it. You make a stunning argument when you beg the question of reliability. What makes someone reliable? While I think there will always be a need for scholarly research, once educators can figure a way to compromise with this generation of googlers, I think the sky will be the limit. I proudly Wiki everything.
This past weekend at my in-laws the conversation somehow turned to Panda Bears and why they aren't actually bears and what they are. So, as the family I married into is apt to do, an encyclopedia was consulted... old school style (perhaps the power was out at that point of the afternoon, I'm not sure). Anyway, what we did learn from these 30 some year old encyclopedias... the paper kind, is that bears like honey. Hmmm. Maybe Winnie the Pooh, but in real life that is not the case. Did they really not know that 30 years ago? It's actually the bee larvae they are after... so my husband informed me not so recently. So the paper ones aren't always full of truth or accuracy either.
PS I love Wikipedia!
I proudly wiki too, but I'm also aware of its limitations. I'm looking for quick rudimentary information; I don't believe that it's the gospel truth. Also, even though the editors check you, what/who says THEY'RE reliable, or any more reliable than you? I will proudly read your encyclopedia article and take it as 99% truth (even if I don't buy the encyclopedia set, because dang they're expensive!).
I've seen second-hand accounts of research that seems to indicate Wikipedia is as reliable as any other type of encyclopedia. Like Nance said, this weekend we read a paper encyclopedia article that said bears love honey. I said, "Someone watched too much Yogi Bear before writing this article." So my advice to you is, don't rely on Yogi Bear for your material when you write your article.
As for scholarly hatred of Wikipedia, I think it's misplaced. The type of skepticism Wikipedia invites actually should be applied to ALL sources of information. Just because someone with a PhD (no matter how many bowties he might wear) says something is true doesn't make it so. In the end, it's like what was said by the man most admired on American college campii, Ronald Reagan, said: "Trust, but verify."
What's wikipedia?
J/K
Hee Hee, I just had to write that.
Kudos to the Bowtie Prof. asked and paid to write for the encycolpedia...is that sold door to door?
Good luck JT. I hope Andy can keep his desired revisions to himself. Hope you're having a nice time on the coast...
Post a Comment