March 10th, 2008

New articles on Wikipedia

Wikipedia logoBadke, W. (March/April 2008). What to do with Wikipedia. Information Today. 32 (2)Retrieved March 7, 2008 from http://www.infotoday.com/online/mar08/Badke.shtml.
“Banning Wikipedia from the academic world doesn’t work either. It doesn’t prevent students from using it secretly (or plagiarizing from it), plus it helps further the anti-academic subculture. We need to be aware that academia is primarily analog and that our students are largely digital. Academics have, for the most part, yet to embrace the new reality that much of the information produced today comes from the users of that information.”

The Battle for Wikipedia’s Soul. (March 6, 2008). The Economist. Retrieved March 10, 2008 from http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354.
“It can either strive to encompass every aspect of human knowledge, no matter how trivial; or it can adopt a more stringent editorial policy and ban articles on trivial subjects, in the hope that this will enhance its reputation as a trustworthy and credible reference source. These two conflicting visions are at the heart of a bitter struggle inside Wikipedia between “inclusionists”, who believe that applying strict editorial criteria will dampen contributors’ enthusiasm for the project, and “deletionists” who argue that Wikipedia should be more cautious and selective about its entries.”

Are you an “inclusionist” or a “deletionist”?

-KateP

Comments

Comment from Sue
Time March 11, 2008 at 12:52 am

It can be argued that if Wikipedia wants to be accepted as an academic source, then it needs to be more selective in it’s entries. This isn’t even taking into account the legal issues that can be had from misinformation. I,personally, am still more comfortable sticking to databases and journals for anything that is written for school. I guess you could call me an old fogie.

Comment from Kate P
Time March 11, 2008 at 7:46 am

Good point Sue–I certainly won’t call you an “old fogie”. One of my hopes is that people know what wikipedia is (i.e. it can be changed at any time by any one) before they think about citing it academically–and then make a choice based on that. Often since the rankings are so high in Google and because it does “look” so professional I fear people “think” it is more than it is.

Comment from roger
Time March 14, 2008 at 6:21 pm

Hello everybody, I am a new learner and was going through my i-guide and come across this conversation and I am so glad I did because I stumbled upon Wikipedia and thought that it had a lot of information and then my instructor let me know that Capella does not allow this as a resource. After reading this I can see why. Thanks
roger

Write a comment