RE: Wikipedia?

["Sloan, Bernie" <bernies@uillinois.edu>]

Karl Bridges likened Wikipedia to an "online version of a large 
white wall in the South Bronx with a bin of magic markers and 
spray paint next to it."

While it may not be the "serious professional reference tool" 
that Karl wants to compare it to, Wikipedia is more than a "large 
white wall in the South Bronx". See, for example, Thomas 
Chesney's "An empirical examination of Wikipedia's credibility" 
in FirstMonday, volume 11, number 11 (November 2006) 
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/chesney/index.html

Karl also suggests that Wikipedia editing might be limited to "a 
paid staff who knew what they were doing". If my memory serves me 
correctly, Wikipedia started as a side project of Nupedia (which 
was an attempt to develop a professional level peer-reviewed 
online encyclopedia). While these editors were unpaid volunteers, 
they did know what they were doing. And I believe Nupedia fell by 
the wayside in about 2003. It was a business model that didn't 
seem to work very well. Larry Sanger, the original 
editor-in-chief of Nupedia, and one of the co-founders of 
Wikipedia along with Jimmy Wales, is taking another stab at the 
concept of a resource with more editorial control than Wikipedia 
with his new Citizendium project (http://www.citizendium.org/).

Bernie Sloan

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Karl Bridges
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 2:47 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu; Joseph J. Esposito
Subject: Re: Wikipedia?

Why should we care?  The fundamental issue is that people seem to 
confuse Wikipedia with a real reference source.  It's not (and 
never has been) in my view a serious professional reference tool. 
It's the online version of a large white wall in the South Bronx 
with a bin of magic markers and spray paint next to it.

Its main value is that it shows the real weakness of the web 
which is the ability of anyone anywhere to put up any information 
they want and have it accepted as truth by the readers -- simply 
with a shell on top that gives it the appearance of organization.

If someone would buy Wikipedia, limit the editing ability to a 
paid staff who knew what they were doing, they might (and I 
stress might) be able to make a going commercial proposition of 
it. An online encyclopedia that is constantly updated is a good 
idea.  Wikipedia just is using the wrong business model.

Karl Bridges
Associate Professor
Information and Instruction Services
Bailey Howe Library
University of Vermont
Burlington, VT  05405
<mailto:karl.bridges@uvm.edu>