RE: Wikipedia?

["Raewyn Adams" <Raewyn.Adams@bopdhb.govt.nz>]

Hi Rick

I agree with you about the acceptance of books, newspapers, etc., 
and the fact that we still read them even though we know they 
might be biased, inaccurate, etc.

I think the difference with Wikipedia and other comparable online 
resources is that because the Internet access to information is 
new, people are not necessarily aware of how it got there. We as 
librarians understand what is happening but our users don't 
necessarily have the knowledge to see the big picture. What I am 
finding scary is how uninformed some teachers are. When our local 
primary school principle was quoted as saying that the school 
library can be downgraded because the pupils can get all the 
information they need from the Internet (ie Wikipedia, etc.) that 
is scary.

Nine year olds are a bit young for a lecture on critical analysis 
of information, but have previously had the security of a school 
library with selected books that are suitable for the curriculum. 
Now, the kids are let loose on the Internet with no idea that 
what they read might not be right.


Regards

Raewyn Adams
Tauranga Hospital Library
New Zealand

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Anderson
Sent: Thursday, 22 February 2007 07:40 AM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Wikipedia?

> Well, I guess if people want to use Wikipedia OK -- each to his 
> own. I still think it shows something of a slippage of 
> standards. And for those who think errors are OK -- well, fine

The idea that Wikipedia is somehow uniquely error-prone cracks me 
up. In libraries, we subscribe to newspapers as a matter of 
course, and when it comes to accuracy, I think the average 
Wikipedia entry would compare pretty favorably to the average 
news story.  We also buy books that are written by political 
hacks (across the political spectrum) and that we know perfectly 
well are filled with distortion and bias.  Are these resources 
full of errors?  Of course.  Do we use them anyway?  Yes, because 
a resource doesn't have to be perfect in order to be worth what 
it costs, or to fulfill a valuable educational purpose (comparing 
the fulminations of Al Franken and Dinesh D'Souza can be very 
instructive). If all our tools and resources had to be 
error-free, we'd have precious few tools and resources.

---
Rick Anderson
Dir. of Resource Acquisition
University of Nevada, Reno Libraries
(775) 682-5664
rickand@unr.edu