Slashdot | Nitpicking Wikipedia’s Vulnerabilities

October 6, 2005

A lot of Wikipedia critics point to hypothetical situations when giving reasons for not valuing the site. Wikipedia even has a ‘Replies to common objections’ article set up to field these. I’d rather look at some real examples of applying the same level of scrutiny to materials often held up as the Platonic ideal of ’scholarship,’ such as peer-reviewed journals, conference papers, established journalism sources, monographs, and print encyclopedias. Even these have disclaimers because they can be can be vandalized or have their reliability and accuracy questioned. As dangerous as it is to trust unverified information, it can be just as bad to make prior judgments discounting information because the source happens to be anonymous. The above examples illustrate that all materials existing along a continuum of valuable information formats. Wikipedia articles can be useful for quickly obtaining factual overviews or as a starting point to further research. But that’s just one librarian’s opinion. How do tech-savvy people view Wikipedia?”[Slashdot’s Nitpicking Wikipedia’s Vulnerabilities entry.]

I love it when librarians pipe up on Slashdot! Leave it to the ever controversial Wikipedia (controversial at least for librarians to support) to strike up the ol’ debate.

:: I’m preparing for my return to blogging soon. Life hasn’t slowed down really, but I’m still stumbling into way too many interesting news items to keep my mouth (blog) shut.

More soon…