Comments on: The Problem with Wikipedia http://languagelabunleashed.org/2007/01/27/the-problem-with-wikipedia/ It's Not Your 8th grade Language Lab Anymore! Tue, 08 May 2012 16:26:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Ryan http://languagelabunleashed.org/2007/01/27/the-problem-with-wikipedia/#comment-568 Ryan Thu, 15 Mar 2007 04:51:44 +0000 http://www.languagelabunleashed.org/2007/01/27/the-problem-with-wikipedia/#comment-568 Lynne, Indeed ... Wikipedia should be treated with the same dose of healthy criticism applied to any other source. Cal, I disagree; removing anonymity or requiring a certain level of expertise / lack of bias reduces the number of potential authors. But, the more people that collaborate on any given article, the less it matters what the particular authority or bias of each individual is. I highly recommend you take a look at The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki; it's available in the Main Library. For both of you (and everyone else) ... stay tuned for an entire show on Wikipedia and its relative merits. I'll be posting an announcement in the next day or two... Lynne,

Indeed … Wikipedia should be treated with the same dose of healthy criticism applied to any other source.

Cal,

I disagree; removing anonymity or requiring a certain level of expertise / lack of bias reduces the number of potential authors. But, the more people that collaborate on any given article, the less it matters what the particular authority or bias of each individual is. I highly recommend you take a look at The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki; it’s available in the Main Library.

For both of you (and everyone else) … stay tuned for an entire show on Wikipedia and its relative merits. I’ll be posting an announcement in the next day or two…

]]> By: Cal Frye http://languagelabunleashed.org/2007/01/27/the-problem-with-wikipedia/#comment-567 Cal Frye Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:13:43 +0000 http://www.languagelabunleashed.org/2007/01/27/the-problem-with-wikipedia/#comment-567 It's not an original observation with me, but I can confirm that Wikipedia appears generally good and authoritative on topics outside my own areas of expertise, but within those areas I have researched personally, I see glaring omissions and inaccuracies. I have edited some Wikipedia articles myself to correct some of the more obvious issues I saw, but a major difference remains: My print publications were peer-reviewed and not anonymous. You can consider the credentials of me and my co-authors and determine a level of trust for what we published. On Wikipedia, no one knows you're a dog. Removing anonymity might be the single best improvement you could make. I understand the other issues this could raise, but even in the Encyclopedia Britannica, you know who wrote the articles and what authority (yes, and biases) they can bring to the subject. It’s not an original observation with me, but I can confirm that Wikipedia appears generally good and authoritative on topics outside my own areas of expertise, but within those areas I have researched personally, I see glaring omissions and inaccuracies. I have edited some Wikipedia articles myself to correct some of the more obvious issues I saw, but a major difference remains:
My print publications were peer-reviewed and not anonymous. You can consider the credentials of me and my co-authors and determine a level of trust for what we published. On Wikipedia, no one knows you’re a dog. Removing anonymity might be the single best improvement you could make. I understand the other issues this could raise, but even in the Encyclopedia Britannica, you know who wrote the articles and what authority (yes, and biases) they can bring to the subject.

]]> By: Lynne Crandall http://languagelabunleashed.org/2007/01/27/the-problem-with-wikipedia/#comment-566 Lynne Crandall Wed, 07 Feb 2007 21:56:09 +0000 http://www.languagelabunleashed.org/2007/01/27/the-problem-with-wikipedia/#comment-566 Marc Prensky gave a talk last year during which he commented on Wikipedia and some professors' bans on using it as a resource. He suggested that they were missing out on a wonderful opportunity to address the difference between "search" and "research." Just because it is on Wikipedia does not automatically mean it is inaccurate, but rather that one might want to make a habit of finding supporting or complimentary data. Marc Prensky gave a talk last year during which he commented on Wikipedia and some professors’ bans on using it as a resource. He suggested that they were missing out on a wonderful opportunity to address the difference between “search” and “research.” Just because it is on Wikipedia does not automatically mean it is inaccurate, but rather that one might want to make a habit of finding supporting or complimentary data.

]]>