In this discussion of the relative value of Wikipedia, some of you might be interested in reading Roy Rosenzweig's "Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past" in The Journal of American History 93:1 (June 2006). I expected Rosenzweig to savage Wikipedia for many of the same reasons discussed on this list. Instead he referenced studies of Wikipedia versus some for-charge "respectable" online reference services in terms of accuracy and content. Surprisingly, Wikipedia was on par or exceeded some of the paid services. (Perhaps that says more about the quality of the paid services?) Anyway, it's another viewpoint in the ongoing Wikipedia debate.
 
But this discussion also points out what we as historians should already know: it's always dangerous to rely on just one source for information! It doesn't hurt to begin with Wikipedia to get a basic layman's synopsis, but then check other sources for confirmation/contradiction. That's where many of our students fail... they see it on the Internet, think it's true, and don't bother taking the extra step to do the additional research necessary to evaluate the accuracy of the first source. The "extra step" is just good historical methodology, whether starting with Wikipedia online, or a published source found in a traditional library.
 
Cheers,
Michelle Krowl
[log in to unmask]
 
 
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.