0

By

I’ve done more and more links to Wikipedia–and I’ll continue to do so, despite criticism of this open-content gem.

Wikipedia is no substitute for demon research, but is a superb way to get a quick overview of a topic. As a blogger linking in, I can devote more space to my main points and less space to the basics. Granted, Wikipedia could use more input from librarians, and fixed-in-time versions could aid citing and otherwise help; it is not infallible. Still, neither are commercial sources, many of which undergo less review than the wiki-based encyclopedia and are less up to date. At least on topics familiar to me, Wikipedia has been on target. TechDirt, in Who Do You Trust, The Wiki Or The Reporter?, has done a pretty good job of putting matters in perspective in the wake of doubts from a librarian and a newspaper columnist.

Related: Wikipedia–can open source be a good source? in LISNews. Also see Slashdot interview with Wikipedia’s founder, along with Wikipedia: Replies to common objections.

Tip: You can often find information in Wikipedia just by typing into Google the searchwords and yes Wikipedia. Sounds obvious, but not everyone thinks of that. Also consider an Internet Explorer add-on.

Gladly made correction: Looks as if certain Wikipedia critics have unwittingly distorted the facts. Branko Collin tells me that Wikipedia already lets you link to fixed-in-time versions. However, he finds that except in the case of articles likely to be the subject of controversy, the latest version is often the best. Yet another confirmation of the potential of open content for reference works! To see past versions of the Wikipedia article you’re reading, just click on the “History” tab near the top of the page. Excellent.

The old articles, by the way, include mentions of IP numbers or links to user pages of the editors. In the future one can imagine optional filters that would, say, limit you to pages vetted by well-identified librarians and other experts with credentials listed in detail. You might even be able to choose a filter that restricted the stable editions to those edited by full professors, for example. Or the filters could reflect the opinions of third parties such as private companies (something possible now if you include the material repostioned on other servers). For all I know, maybe those filtering features exist in reality or in the mind of a Wiki nerd. If not I suspect they could be added easily enough.

Can you imagine paper encyclopedias updated so systematically, so promptly, and in such helpful detail as filter-enhanced versions that I’ve discussed? You bet I’m impatient for influential people in the library and academic worlds to understand the possibilities here. Instead of fearing the Wikipedia, professional librarians should be jumping right in, joining the fun, and discouraging readers from being too trusting of outdated information in paper encyclopedias.

Update, Aug. 29: Further tweaks of the filter concept.

 
0