Wikipedia – Is it an authoritative resource?
Because my work involves recent technology, I use Wikipedia as a resource and frequently use definitions from Wikipedia in my presentations. Established encyclopedias and dictionaries do not cover many of the terms that I address. I recently attributed a definition to Wikipedia and received feedback from a critic in the audience stating that Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. I disagree with this assessment and believe that the person who made the statement is probably not aware of the quality and caliber of Wikipedia contributors and editors. Yes, some entries need work and are questionable in their authority, but the editors are reasonable in noting this in those entries. Otherwise, I find the information to be accurate and sometimes exhaustive.
Does anyone have an opinion about Wikipedia? Do you use it as an authoritative source? There was a recent Wall Street Journal editorial opinion written by L. Gordon Crovitz (5/12/2008 Pg. A13) which applauds Wikipedia and other bottom up approaches to communications. Suggesting that it may be a technology tool to improve governing!
There are many examples of successful collaboration using Wiki tools, in industry, government, and technology. A very informative book which I recommend in this area is “Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything” by Tapscott and Williams.
Look forward to hearing your thoughts on Wikipedia and Wiki collaboration in general.
Wikipedia is not an authoritative source by design and by definition. It is user contributed media which anyone can edit which is almost the opposite of authoritative. This does not necessarily impugn the quality or accuracy of any entry or of any contributor. But it doesn’t make it accurate either. One need only look at the history tab of any entry to witness the constantly evolving nature of any content. Even referencing content from Wikipedia begs the question of when did you obtain your information, what did it look like at an earlier date and what does it look like today.To that point, if one were to reference “Criticism of Wikipedia” on Wikipedia – a page that has been updated over 500 times in the last 4 years – you would encounter, on May 13, 2008, the entry that “Notable criticisms (of Wikipedia) include that its open nature makes it unauthoritative and unreliable, that it exhibits system bias and that its group dynamics hinder its goals.”In speaking to a group that trusts you and considers YOU authoritative, I would be most careful in using Wikipedia to support any definition or description without qualifying the information. Wikipedia is a good place to start, but good research & journalistic practice would be to obtain multiple sources and at least one that is truly authoritative by reputation or peer review process.- Sonny
Flatlander. Thanks for the feedback. I will keep that in mind next time I am speaking to a group that considers ME authoritative and trustworthy.By way of background, I wasn’t using Wikipedia to purport a cure for disease. The statement referencing Wikipedia was reliable and could be backed up with other source material. I simply liked the wording that Wikipedia used in calling the WWW a “network of networks.” And, as such gave Wikipedia credit for that turn of phrase. I think the critic has some beef against Wikipedia. That being what it is, I thought it would be helpful to gather the group think on the topic.I also asked the LinkedIn network for opinions on using Wikipedia and got an overwhelming response. You may want to look at the answers on LinkedIn. There you will find a number of opinions on the usefulness and appropriateness or inappropriateness of citing Wikipedia or any encyclopedia for that matter.Cheers!Jayne