First, let me clarify an earlier statement that we (we being my college and dept.) don't allow Wikipedia to be used as a resource for papers because we hadn't seen evidence that we could trust the information found within. This does not mean I or my colleagues don't use it at all for various purposes. Students have to demonstrate a command of the literature, especially when taking their comps, and Wikipedia just isn't appropriate. Now, this may change when it proves that it is more trustworthy. As a faculty we will evaluate it and make a decision.
James wrote:
>people will use Wikipedia because it's easy and free and up to date, and people will just ignore anybody who says, "Don't use Wikipedia!!!" That is, I sincerely >*hope* people ignore such statements and make up their own minds....(snip)... After all, if somebody wants information on Italian foreign policy, is it better to >look it up in Wikipedia or in a book published by Cambridge University Press in 1968? Figuring out which sources are and are not appropriate is a very >complicated task and just saying that peer reviewed publications are better than the rest is far too simplistic to be correct. The public isn't stupid: they can see for >themselves the problems with the "authoritative' media from the NY Times to the predominance of "peer-review."
I think we can *hope* that but what I see from my little 'perch' in academia is not encouraging. Undergraduates---coming in at age 18, having grown up using the Internet and the Web--are hard pressed when it comes to distinguishing a reliable source of information from an unreliable ("free and easy" or not) source. The fact that it comes from the Web seems to be good enough. Of course, there are many variables working here, especially what education they received and where they received it. This becomes very apparent when some students continue on to graduate studies. One of my doctoral students is an Outreach Librarian here at UNT and she has had to create a special class to educate incoming Masters and PhD students across many disciplines on how to use resources in the library, and especially how to evaluate resources--whether Web-based or not--for relevancy, reliability, or the basics of how to do literature reviews, etc. It's not just an issue of whether something is !
peer-reviewed vs. "the rest". The ability to accomplish this "complicated task" is, in my opinion, being eaten away---some of that due to overuse of the "free and easy" and quick I-don't-want-to-think-for-myself information that is found everywhere, not just on the Internet.
Now, James asked "Why don't librarians go where our users are and try to get involved inWikipedia?". A very viable idea, but part of me also hesitates. That we need people to realize what our catalogs can offer by creating new pathways is fine, but I would rather meet the user halfway, rather than constantly having to "go to" them. I say this for exactly the reason stated above. Do we not also teach people? Are we not still the Learned Librarian (or whatever title you want to give yourself)? The library catalog (yes, I working hard to bring it back to point) should be an educational tool, not just an index, with tethers to all the outside resources available. James cited some interesting statistics about who gets used and how much, but it makes it seems like we are on Survivor and the one with the smallest percentage has to leave the island, instead of everyone co-existing peacfully on the island, no matter the percentage of use.
Early morning, not enough coffee, babbling.
**************************************************************
Shawne D. Miksa, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Library and Information Sciences
College of Information
University of North Texas
email: Shawne.Miksa_at_unt.edu
http://courses.unt.edu/smiksa/index.htm
office 940-565-3560 fax 940-565-3101
**************************************************************
Received on Mon Oct 26 2009 - 09:55:07 EDT