Teach42

Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems | The Register

Quality problems on a site where virtually 99% of the content is written by people without any sort of editorial background or formal knowledge of the subject? That’s not exactly a huge surprise.

However, it does not take away from the usefulness of the project either. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. Nor is it a dictionary, nor is it reliable. However, that does not diminish its value as a resource.

Wikipedia is a community where people have collaborated together to provide information about an extraordinary number of topics. There is no guarantee that the information will be unbiased, factual or complete. However, the idea behind it is that if you find any of the information is wrong, you should take a minute to correct it.

Therein lies the importance of the project. If something is wrong at the New York Times or in the Encyclopedia Britannica, there is no sense of ownership, no sense of responsibility that one should attempt to correct it. Mostly, people just mock the mistakes made by so called professionals. At Wikipedia, you assume there might be mistakes or omissions, and when you find them it is your actual duty to correct them.

Wikipedia is a much more accurate reflection of the type of information students are going to be exposed to in the 21st century. When they do a report, the first thing they will do is a Google search. They won’t necessarily be searching through accredited resources, but web sites, forums, and message boards where ‘normal’ people have provided information and opinions about the topics they are researching. It is likely, and expected that the student will eventually move to more credible resources, but the path there may wind through a few people’s backyards and garages.

Using Wikipedia as the sole resource for research would be as ridiculous as… well… using CNN as the sole basis for a research paper. It is critical that students learn to take any information they encounter with a grain of salt and to cross check it against other sources. It is a place to start your research, not a place to end it.

Of the many, many atrocious entries, we’d like to bring one more to the HUAC’s attention, and it’s our very favorite. As of the time of writing, whoever wrote the entry for soul legend Baby Washington has no idea who she is, but makes a wild guess, then gives up completely with the less-than-helpful advice: “Many have written inaccurate information about Washington. She IS NOT “BABY WASHINGTON” from James Brown.” (sic).

Indeed. But note that this entry has been edited no less than seven times and can be found replicated at Biography.com, Answers.com, Reference.com, InfoMutt, The Free Dictionary and hundreds of other sites.

IMHO, the problem there isn’t Wikipedia’s, rather the sites that leech onto it and treat it as gospel. The crazy man on the corner raving about the UFO invasion isn’t the problem. It’s the people who hear him and assume that he must be right because he has a megaphone.

Don’t forget to think for yourself this weekend.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI