Comments on: Wikipedia: Good for Leads http://www.contentious.com/2005/08/02/wikipedia-good-for-leads/ Amy Gahran's news and musings on how we communicate in the online age. Fri, 22 Aug 2008 02:53:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: RenĂ© http://www.contentious.com/2005/08/02/wikipedia-good-for-leads/#comment-28476 RenĂ© Wed, 03 Aug 2005 03:38:40 +0000 #comment-28476 The English Wikipedia is generally pretty good IMO, but the Dutch version su&#$. I guess it takes a critical mass for the 'right' people to win the edit wars. Wikipedia really needs some sort of rating or quality verification system, with frozen versions or releases of articles, or of the encyclopedia as a whole. It could learn from the open source software communities. No one in their right mind would allow anyone to edit anything in the source code at any time in any way they see fit. The English Wikipedia is generally pretty good IMO, but the Dutch version su&#$. I guess it takes a critical mass for the ‘right’ people to win the edit wars.

Wikipedia really needs some sort of rating or quality verification system, with frozen versions or releases of articles, or of the encyclopedia as a whole.

It could learn from the open source software communities. No one in their right mind would allow anyone to edit anything in the source code at any time in any way they see fit.

]]> By: Amy Gahran http://www.contentious.com/2005/08/02/wikipedia-good-for-leads/#comment-28471 Amy Gahran Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:34:54 +0000 #comment-28471 Jack, I don't think we disagree here. I too would hesitate to use Wikipedia along as the <i>definitive</i> source on most topics. My point here is that, given its collaborative and evolving nature, Wikipedia can become a uniquely useful source of leads and sources. Of course anything you get from any source -- including Wikipedia -- should be verified. But that's journalism 101. Thanks, - Amy Gahran Jack, I don’t think we disagree here. I too would hesitate to use Wikipedia along as the definitive source on most topics. My point here is that, given its collaborative and evolving nature, Wikipedia can become a uniquely useful source of leads and sources.

Of course anything you get from any source — including Wikipedia — should be verified. But that’s journalism 101.

Thanks,

- Amy Gahran

]]> By: Jack Krupansky http://www.contentious.com/2005/08/02/wikipedia-good-for-leads/#comment-28469 Jack Krupansky Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:09:24 +0000 #comment-28469 I have mixed views about the "authority" of Wikipedia entries. I personally use it a modest amount, as a quick resource, but citing Wiki entries is tricky. Between the time that I read it and a reader of mine accesses it, the content may have changed and I may no longer agree with my own citation. I can't bring myself to write "See the Wiki entry for a good definition of X", but must fall back on "See the Wiki for *a* definition of X." Citing an excerpt from a Wiki has the problem that the excerpt may no longer be there or may have been edited dramatically since my visit to the Wiki. That said, I have no problem citing the Wkiipedia overall as *a* source for research on the web. My preferred source for looking up a topic is simply a standard search engine, specifically since it will highlight sources peripherally related to the topic that might not have even occurred to the author(s) of the Wiki. Getting good definitions are difficult. If they're not already in a standard online dictionary, there is a good chance that the Wikipedia may only be *a* source and not really a definitive source. Finally, the simple fact that they allow *me* to edit (or even create) entries raises my own questions about its authority as a citable source. -- Jack Krupansky I have mixed views about the “authority” of Wikipedia entries. I personally use it a modest amount, as a
quick resource, but citing Wiki entries is tricky. Between the time that I read it and a reader of mine
accesses it, the content may have changed and I may no longer agree with my own citation.

I can’t bring myself to write “See the Wiki entry for a good definition of X”, but must fall back on
“See the Wiki for *a* definition of X.”

Citing an excerpt from a Wiki has the problem that the excerpt may no longer be there or may have been
edited dramatically since my visit to the Wiki.

That said, I have no problem citing the Wkiipedia overall as *a* source for research on the web.

My preferred source for looking up a topic is simply a standard search engine, specifically since it will
highlight sources peripherally related to the topic that might not have even occurred to the author(s)
of the Wiki.

Getting good definitions are difficult. If they’re not already in a standard online dictionary, there
is a good chance that the Wikipedia may only be *a* source and not really a definitive source.

Finally, the simple fact that they allow *me* to edit (or even create) entries raises my own
questions about its authority as a citable source.

– Jack Krupansky

]]>