When last we met, I discussed the behemoth that is Google. Risking academic scorn (at least from those who stopped reading halfway through), I pointed out why Google is a superior product. Today, I do the same with Wikipedia. You will not often hear a librarian sing the praises of Wikipedia, so be sure to mark this day in your calendar.
As I am writing, the English portion of Wikipedia includes 2,808,575 articles. By comparison, Grove Music Online is comprised of the equivalent of 36 printed encyclopedia volumes and has fewer than 100,000 articles. Although this is very rough estimate, this means that Wikipedia could be the equivalent of over 1,000 printed volumes. The scope of the content is also exceptional. Here are five articles I found using the “Random Article” feature:
• Jacques Rougeau (semi-retired French-Canadian professional wrestler)
• Sechelt/Porpoise Bay Water Aerodrome (a former airport)
• Pont-de-Metz (a commune in France)
• Grey Teal (a duck)
• Ultimate Human (Marvel comics series)
With a scope like this, you are able to find information on practically anything (a slight exaggeration, of course) without having to search very far. Also, since most Wikipedia articles can be updated by anyone, they are constantly being expanded and improved.
And now, the moment you’ve been waiting for: The Caveat. Wikipedia is an amazing resource, but only when used properly. I would never use it as the final word on something that really matters, such as a research paper. A general rule of thumb for research is that if you don’t know the source, you can’t trust it. While one of Wikipedia’s strengths is that anybody can change it, this also means you don’t know who changed it.
So, what can we use it for? It is excellent for questions that just don’t matter that much, such as if I’m wondering who wrote the theme song to The Office. I’ll probably find the correct answer, but if I don’t, it really isn’t that important. The other primary use for Wikipedia, perhaps more relevant for an academic setting, is as a research aid. A well written article includes references that point out where the information came from, thus pointing the reader to more authoritative sources. Even if there are no references, it could give you some ideas that could aim you in the right direction. Again, Wikipedia is not a one stop shop for research, but it is a valuable tool when used properly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You can find out who wrote an article though the history tab. For example:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacques_Rougeau&action=history
This is true, but it usually won't tell you who that person actually is, sometimes just providing an IP address. Even when given a user ID, there is often nothing to verify that person's credentials and how they are qualified to write/edit an article. Even if proper credit is given, any substantial article will have undergone a long series of edits, making it next to impossible to dig through the entire history to determine who wrote what, especially since many are just small changes, such as fixing a typo (as I have done anonymously many times)
ReplyDelete