On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:52:01 -0500, Miksa, Shawne <SMiksa_at_UNT.EDU> wrote:
>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.
Shawne,
I agree with this completely, but the fact remains that once people leave
the cozy confines of the university and get a real job, too often they lose
access to the vast majority of these wonderful resources we teach them
about. I am always getting requests from former students who are at a loss
once they leave and I have changed my Information Literacy sessions to
better reflect this reality. These people (and perhaps a huge percentage of
the populace) have no choice except Wikipedia. (Yes, they can walk over to
their local public library. I tell them to do so, but they won't do it) It
is very clear that reference questions are declining precipitately. People
need help in all aspects of information search, retrieval, evaluation and
use. But in any case, they need information and Wikipedia is certainly
better than a random web page. This does not mean that I think it's good. We
must work with the situation we are in and the tools we have. It is so much
better than it was 25 years ago!
I'm going to start a new thread where I shall share something I have worked
on for awhile, which may address some of these issues and get some debate going.
Jim Weinheimer
Received on Mon Oct 26 2009 - 10:52:40 EDT