Content area
Full Text
Wikipedia and libraries got off to a strained start. Perhaps this is only my perception, but it appeared that Wikipedia was used as a defenseless punching bag in much information literacy instruction.1 The refrain was always "don't use Wikipedia" or "don't use Google" to the neglect of far worse research sources like Yahoo! Answers. This "traditional" stance of librarianship was that the community-edited encyclopedia failed any quality analysis due to its sketchy authority; "anyone can edit"-anonymously even!-and therefore its content cannot possibly be trusted. Instructors would even develop assignments wherein students would vandalize the encyclopedia, deliberately inserting inaccurate or incoherent content, to demonstrate its unreliability. Leaving ethics aside, such assignments are constructed to ignore the finely tuned "bots" (editing programs which constantly crawl the site looking for clear signs of mischief) and diligent editors working to remove such content.
A more balanced view shows that Wikipedia, while imperfect, is a strong source of information. 1 used to employ the aptly named "CRAAP" test when teaching information literacy and Wikipedia's test results are informative:
Currency-Wikipedia articles are often updated frequently, with current events being reflected almost immediately. This standard is a great chance to show students the "View history" tab of each article which lists all edits in reverse chronological order.
Relevance-Wikipedia's incredible scope virtually ensures it has something pertinent no matter the research topic. This is one area where the online encyclopedia indubitably outshines some of its more historied competitors.
Authority-The first "A" is where Wikipedia obviously fails according to CRAAP; its authors can be inexpert, and sometimes unknown or anonymous.
Accuracy-Wikipedia articles emphasize sourcing every statement and can include hundreds of references.
Purpose-Wikipedia is run by a nonprofit organization and devoted to the free spread of information, much like libraries. It fares quite favorably compared to many other web sources in this regard.
ACCIDENTAL TECHNOLOGIST
Making first- or second-year students actually perform the analytical work to come to the conclusion that Wikipedia is strong in some respects but weak in others is a huge victory. Better than simply blacklisting particular resources, students will know why it is inappropriate to use in particular contexts. The encyclopedia itself admits as much, stating that "in most academic institutions Wikipedia, like most encyclopedias and other tertiary sources, is...