There are newspaper columnists who have cited articles in Wikipedia as if it's exactly the same as printed encyclopedias. I've also had students who quoted Wikipedia in their thesis proposals with no attempt at providing a date or time. And while it is very tempting to go into Wikipedia and change what was being quoted just to prove a point, I haven't done that... yet =)
I would not, however, go so far as to say what appears in ACRLog:
...the arbitrariness of the accuracy in Wikipedia combined with the poor writing has me leaning toward the answer that such an encyclopedia has no place in an academic information landscape.Like any print encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles should, at best, be a starting point for research—and not a primary source. What we need to do as librarians—because there is no way students will not consult Wikipedia—is to educate them on the evaluation of sources.
I now regret not having gone to "Sins of Omission?" and "Comparing Wikipedia and Britannica," but check out Ethan Zuckerman's "Omission and Accuracy?" and Meredith Farkas's "On Accuracy and Authority" for the content of the sessions on studies done regarding Wikipedia's completeness and accuracy.
For more up-to-date information on what's going on at Wikimania, see Technorati and the Wikimania blog.
Category: Wikimania
