You are hereBlogs / dillon's blog / Week 6: Wikis
Week 6: Wikis
I've never really understood the controversy over wikis, and I've always been inclined to view the controversy as more of a generational misunderstanding. My mother, after seeing Andrew Keen speak at OLA conference, insisted that I read his book, The Cult of the Amateur: how today's Internet is killing our culture. But the
element of his message that she found most horrifying, that young people are
looking to Wikipedia as an authoritative source, did not really concern me at all. I use Wikipedia all the time, and most people I know use it as well, but none of us look to it as an authoritative source. I've always read wikipedia entries in the way that I would ask for information from a group of strangers. It might be entirely accurate, or it might not, but it would often point me in the right direction, and I would expect to verify anything from an identifiable source.
The anonymity of Wikipedia will always be an impediment to treating it as an authoritative source - author being the root of the word and the concept. The addendum at the end of the Schiff article points to this deficiency. Subjectivity is always going to be an issue with
wikis, as it always has been for traditional forms of writing, but this is why authorship is such an essential element of critical evaluation.
On the other hand, wikis offer wonderful opportunities for group collaboration. I really like how some of the libraries in this week's case studies have adapted the wiki platforms to suit their own needs - particularly the examples that are clear in their purpose, elegant in their design, and well-explained.
I also don't think that blogs have to remain anonymous or uncontrolled. What about a wiki that's open for the public to read, but that is only edited by a number of named experts in the field? I'm sure someone has thought of that already, but I can't think of an example.
- dillon's blog
- Login to post comments
Hey Dillon, I think for libraries in specific it is a good idea to have a wiki that is available to the public but is still created and edited by people of authority, such as reference or policy wikis. I do not think that this would take away the fact that it is a wiki and open to the public; wikis are community information and it just might be that the community writing the content is the experts themselves.
Also, your comments on authority got me thinking about how first semester we were assigned reference questions where we had to find the 'right' answer. Lots of us found that encyclopedias varied in information, even in the oh so authoritative library. It just goes to show that language, cultures, people, place and time changes. Considering my first hand experience with misinformation, Wikipedia can be just as useful of a source.
Great comment about Wiki-pedia and its authoritativeness (is that even a word). The other great thing about Wikipedia is that many entries come with links to more authoritative sites to further enhance what you are looking for. On a public library information desk, I can attest to the usefulness of Wikipedia.
Great Post Dillon
During my undergrad I had a professor that nearly failed a student for citing from Wikipedia in his paper on the War on Vietnam.
I agree that it is not necessarily an "academic" resource, but it is a resource non-the-less. It represents a collective social (nearly oral) tradition of facts and fiction, stories and myths floating around our culture.
Where the truth lies depends on where you live.
I guess there will always be various levels of truth.
I'd put wikapedia somewhere on the scale of ten at about a six... maybe five...
Good points, Jane. While I would never cite a "fact" from Wikipedia without checking it out first, I would definitely note the presence of something in Wikipedia as a phenomenon itself. The persistent presence of a given rumour or idea on Wikipedia, even if it is false, is definitely evidence of a cultural idea or trend.
I'm not sure I agree with the statement, "Where the truth lies depends on where you live", but I acknowledge for many issues we'll always have only shades of grey.
Jane, I really liked your comments- especially about wikipedia as a medium to capture the myths and stories of a particular culture.
What I think is important to keep in mind is that only a small segment of the population actually contributes to Wikipedia. So to say it's "collective" wisdom, or concensus about a certain topic is misleading. I would like to see a study done on the demographics of people who do contribute. I can guess that it's mostly well-educated, economically advantaged, male, and north american. But hey, I could be totally wrong on this one! Anyone come across any research on this?
Amy - I agree with your assessment of who the majority of contributors are - many of our articles and blog posts on the new technologies we're looking at talk about that fact - that young males are the most likely demographic to adopt new technology. I hope that as Wikipedia has grown, the contributor base has also changed - especially as more people become aware of wikis in general, and Wikipedia in particular.