5

By David Rothman

Wikibooks logoCan Wikibooks serve readers successfully? Well, in some cases. John Mark Ockerbloom, for example, the moderator of the Book People list, likes a short introduction to the solar system. But in most cases he isn’t so confident, and I can appreciate his concerns:

If we look at encylopedia articles as the first word rather than the last word on a subject, a “good-enough” but flawed article can still be a useful starting point to find more detailed and reliable information on a topic…

But the “good enough” threshold is quite a bit higher for books than for articles. I’ll often put up with an article that’s not particularly well written, organized or vetted. I’m just using it for relatively quick consultation. I can mentally impose my own selection and organization on a fairly short block of information. And I can quickly move on to other resources to check aspects of the article I find questionable.

Related–and cited by John: Andy Carvin‘s advice on the best way schools can use the Wikipedia. He suggests that teachers assign students to fact-check Wikipedia articles. I like that idea. It’s a great way to teach critical thinking, a skill that nonstudents, too, should use with any encyclopedia. The Wikipedia is a valuable resource, but hardly a be-all and end-all.

TeleRead’s earlier observations on Wikibooks: Here. Although I like the idea of Wikibooks, the concept needs to be executed the right way–ideally with fact-checking by librarians and content experts. Meanwhile John has done a public service in reminding people of the limitations of Wikibooks as the project now exists.

 
5