Wikipedia, for all its current faults, is a triumph . . . and a
monument to creative use of information technology for the benefit of
all mankind.
As to its accuracy . . . as one of our correspondents stated so
eloquently . . . Wikipedia represents a technology at the very
beginnings of the revolution of which it is a part . . . and already
it represents a body of knowledge and an approach to sharing
knowledge that promises to dwarf the fruits of Gutenberg's
revolution. It is monumental in scale . . . and, at this stage of
its evolution, amazingly accurate.
Our major problem at this point, I would argue, is not
Wikipedia . . . but the stewardship of those who would (and should)
serve as its guardians, guides, contributors and advocates.
Foremost among those stewards . . . are us.
Contrary to the inferences one would be compelled to draw from our on-
line conversation to date . . . the quality of the Wikipedia approach
and its content have been widely praised, recognized, bemedaled, and
compared favorably, among other sources, to the Encylopedia
Britannica . . . and it is accessible to audiences around the world
that should stagger the imagination of anyone who has written, used,
or advised those who use the printed word.
Sure there are blemishes . . . some of them infuriating (Jimmy Wales
biography is (or was) regularly "adjusted" by pranksters; the
article on "evolution" has been hijacked regularly by creationists.)
But . . . in my experience . . . the true stewards of the trust that
Wikipedia represents have ALWAYS . . always . . . responded vigorously.
And the vast majority of the material I've found has been EXTREMELY
useful . . . in the same way that any "encylocpedia" article is
useful. And believe me . . . I look up things, in English and
German, that make the bios of early Virginia slaves look like current
events.
So . . . how does one use . . . and judge . . . Wikipedia at this
point in its "evolution."
I'd say one would use it in the say way one uses any source edited by
mere humans.
Use it to teach your students about "sources" vs. "Souces" vs. sources.
Look at it in the context of our "objective" discussions here.
And, for goodness sakes, don't discard the entire body of work
because of flaws in a piece . . . or even more than one piece . . .
of it.
As for our friends in NC . . . what competent teacher in the 21st
century doesn't take the citation of an encyclopedia article as a
primary source as an automatic red flag?
Who . . . in their right mind . . . would consider ANY source
"definitive."
Indeed, what scholar doesn't take ANY source with a grain of salt.
Check out some of the early "definitive" articles on "Atlantis" or
"race" by "legitimate" scholars in comparable "printed" encyclopedias.
In Wikipedia we have a young, evolving, incredibly important and
valuable treasure at our disposal . . . and, indeed, a treasure that
WE have been handed the duty and opportunity to protect, and improve,
and make ever more valuable.
If one finds an error in Wikipedia, in my view, one is honor bound to
correct it . . . and re-correct it . . . and correct it again . . .
until such time as the project evolves to the point that pranksters
and ideologues give up.
The resource is too valuable, even in its current incarnation, to
abandon to the barbarians.
And it's free . . . to the world.
If Jefferson was right, in the end, truth will out . . . even if
"anyone" can edit.
To that I would add . . . only if the good guys work as hard as the
bad ones.
Forgive the rant. And in the spirit of full disclosure, it was none
other than Jimmy Wales who suggested a motto . . . Jefferson's call
for Eternal Hostility Against Every Form of Tyranny Over the Mind of
Man . . for an organization to which I'm proud to be a member.
Keep up the good fight. It's worth it.
Best,
Dan
Daniel Morrow
Board of Visitors
School of Information and Library Science
University of North Carolina
Phone: 703-481-1804 ext 206
Fax: 703-467-0875
[log in to unmask]
|
