Because it's becomming increasingly commonplace on discussions here, I think it's time we pondered the phenomanon known as Wikipedia. Like it or not, it's here to stay and it's being used more and more in ways which make traditional media shudder.
What are your views on its usefulness? Do you think it's an acceptable manner of disseminating information?
Do you think there are any dangers inherent in allowing the "truth as agreed upon" to be depicted as it is?
Do you think academia will ever accept Wikipedia for what it attempts to be, or will it simply be put into its own context as a byproduct of the e-revolution?
My views, in brief:
I take nothing on it as fact. I treat it as popular opinion until I can confirm it via a more trustworthy source. The internet is too full of disturbed young kiddies in their mothers' basements who like to needlessly screw with people (a false idea can be just as destructive as the worst computer virus). The authors are not held accountable for their content; there is no way to assess the quality of the research as there is in a more traditional forum. (Though I am impressed at the attempt to include links to sources/bibliographies lately - it's a step in the right direction)
Until its content is subjected to more scrutiny, I'm going to refrain from endorsing it. My students (I run tutorial sessions fro undergraduate history students) are told that such a source is unacceptable for their work as well.
What are your views on its usefulness? Do you think it's an acceptable manner of disseminating information?
Do you think there are any dangers inherent in allowing the "truth as agreed upon" to be depicted as it is?
Do you think academia will ever accept Wikipedia for what it attempts to be, or will it simply be put into its own context as a byproduct of the e-revolution?
My views, in brief:
I take nothing on it as fact. I treat it as popular opinion until I can confirm it via a more trustworthy source. The internet is too full of disturbed young kiddies in their mothers' basements who like to needlessly screw with people (a false idea can be just as destructive as the worst computer virus). The authors are not held accountable for their content; there is no way to assess the quality of the research as there is in a more traditional forum. (Though I am impressed at the attempt to include links to sources/bibliographies lately - it's a step in the right direction)
Until its content is subjected to more scrutiny, I'm going to refrain from endorsing it. My students (I run tutorial sessions fro undergraduate history students) are told that such a source is unacceptable for their work as well.