Read, Brock
Chronicle of Higher Education; 10/27/2006, Vol. 53 Issue 10, pA31-A36.
The debate on the reliably of encyclopedias that allow any users to edit the content, is generally split between two factions in the academic world; whether to ignore it or to contribute to it. Wikipedia is currently the “Internet’s hottest information source”. Alexander M.C. Halavais, who is an assistant professor of communications at Quinnipiac College admits to being one of the scholars who contributes his own expertise to articles on the site from time to time.
Two years ago, Mr. Halavais tested an theory on Wikipedia and under an alias, submitted false information on 13 different articles (including one about “a short-lived political party in New Brunswick, Canada, the professor wrote of a politician felled by ‘a very public scandal relating to an official Party event at which cocaine and prostitutes were made available.’”) expecting them to remain unnoticed for a time. He was surprised however to find that in less than three hours after his posting, all of his facts had been deleted by members patrolling the changes to sites. Even with this incident, there are still many who say that “Wikipedia devalues the notion of expertise itself.
Among the skeptics is Michael Gorman, the immediate past president of the American Library Association, who says "The problem with an online encyclopedia created by anybody is that you have no idea whether you are reading an established person in the field or someone with an ax togrind,".
I believe that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is very resourceful because there are many people who just spend their time monitoring the pages and checking facts. For anything thing of academic nature, there are many, many other sources that are credited by sources with expertise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment