Wikipedia is not the Devil
Someone on the WEB4LIB mailing list left a note about the Post-Standard article Librarian: Don't use Wikipedia as source. The complaint being that Wikipedia is non-authoritative, not to be trusted, and that "part of [this librarian's] job is to help [her] students develop critical thinking skills." (which I could rant a whole 'nother piece on - as Edward Wigg puts it "critical thinking does not require you to rely on appeals to authority.").
The article rubs me the wrong way, personally. There are just as many sites out there that DON'T have disclaimers on them, yet are used for reference far more often than not. Say I want to research mythology. Should I use the Encyclopedia Mythica, which looks all professional and has an entry on centaurs, focusing only on Greek mythology, (which is great if my worldview is that theology, and not on the evolution of centaurs into other books, games, and species)? Or should I use Wikipedia, which has far more to say, far more "links" to "learn" from, and an exact history of what was modified, by whom, and when?
As an anal librarian, researcher, or scholar, I would MUCH prefer to lend my talents to Wikipedia, correcting any errors I might personally see, contacting those who made said errors, et cetera.
Also, the librarian who sent the email didn't mention or know that Wikipedia HAS been recently adding "authoritative" data, now copyright free, from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica:
"The 1911 edition is no longer restricted by copyright, and it is available in several more modern forms. Much content from the 1911 edition has been incorporated into Wikipedia; a quick count in July 2004 claimed around 1950 articles. A large number of these are about historical figures or events, and are unlikely to require much revision to remain excellent summaries for the foreseeable future."
What this one librarian deems "too far", I see as a strength: I'd much rather be able to correct an error RIGHT NOW then to contact a supposedly or admittedly authoritative site, inform them of an error, and receive no response, lackluster hubris, or worse yet, blanket acceptance (as blanket acceptance on an authoritative site is worse than a lie on a non-authoritative). Similarly, I doubt that the Encyclopedia Mythica would be interested in listing the "evolution" of centaurs and the suffix "-taur" into non-mythological, but related, beasts.
In essence, I WANT the combined intellect, though fallible, of zillions of people. Zillions of people, with the free ability to contribute, will always create a stronger entry than a force-fed, group-analyzed, committee blurb.
