Blogs » Digital Babble » Wikipedia in the media

Subscribe


Don't know if many of you ever read my previous post on Wikipedia, if not you can read it by clicking here.

It seems like Wikipedia has been in the news lately because of a false entry that according to a news report, "linked former USA Today Editor John Seigenthaler Sr. with the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and Senator Robert F. Kennedy."

Here is my opinion on the matter. First of all, anyone from a legitimate news agency that bases their facts on items found on Wikipedia is an idiot. I supposed they are the same types who wrote their research papers in college by searching the web and copying and pasting from bulletin boards and free essay pages.

See the comments from Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder and president of Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia:

How should users view Wikipedia? Do you think they should consider it authoritative?

It should be thought of as a work in progress — it's our intention to be Britannica or better quality, and our policies and everything are designed with that goal in mind. We don't reach that quality yet — we know that. We're a work in progress.

Do you think students and researchers should cite Wikipedia?

No, I don't think people should cite it, and I don't think people should cite Britannica, either — the error rate there isn't very good. People shouldn't be citing encyclopedias in the first place. Wikipedia and other encyclopedias should be solid enough to give good, solid background information to inform your studies for a deeper level. And really, it's more reliable to read Wikipedia for background than to read random Web pages on the Internet.