I have never considered user-generated content on Wikipedia to be more than what librarians call a "discovery service".
Briefly skimming an article on a subject l may know little about, I invariably evaluate the sources rather than the text and hit the cited references. In my 15-year experience, even the weakest and most apparently biased articles have at least a few refs that lead to citable sources and larger literature. On Thu, Sep 26, 2019, 11:54 AM Merrilee Proffitt <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I completely agree with Kathleen. I would assert that it is a lack of > nuance around the nature of information sources and the research task at > hand that has lead educators and others to wholesale "ban" the use of > Wikipedia. > > Whether or not a source can be utilized in a research context depends on > the researcher, and what information they are supporting with the citation. > For my middle school daughter doing some investigation on an element in the > periodic table (as she has been doing this week), the Wikipedia English > article (or any encyclopedia article) is appropriate for her. For a > graduate student in chemistry this would not be appropriate, but the grad > student might (appropriately) cite Wikipedia for some basic definitional > stuff, just as they might cite a dictionary or something similar. You see > Wikipedia utilized appropriately in citations all the time -- why would we > discourage this? > > Having conversations about the veracity of online information is tough. > Wikipedia can be challenging because articles are at various levels of > development. To my mind, this makes it something that those of us engaged > in conversations around information literacy should steer towards, rather > than away from, because a) Wikipedia is widely utilized in a variety of > contexts and b) it is a great teaching tool for talking about when you can > trust information online and when you should steer clear. But saying "no" > to *any* information source without having a discussion about it seems > lazy. It definitely does not reflect the type of discourse we should be > having, especially now. > > I look forward to more discussion on this topic. > > Merrilee > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 9:02 AM Federico Leva (Nemo) <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Twitter doesn't facilitate reasoned arguments. I suppose as usual the >> goal was to encourage greater use of the references and other >> meta-content of Wikipedia articles, which are excellent tools for >> critical thinking. >> >> Federico >> >> Kathleen DeLaurenti, 26/09/19 17:55: >> > Hi all - >> > >> > As a librarian who uses and supports Wikipedia, I wanted to bring up >> > some issues around the BuzzFeed article posted today about M-Journal >> > that has led to some messaging from the WikipediaUK twitter account >> that >> > I find concerning. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to >> > bring this up, but I wasn't sure where else to reach out. >> > >> > For those who missed, a citation cite is not manufacturing journal >> > articles if a student submits a Wiki article so that it looks like an >> > "official" citation in their school research papers. >> > >> https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/wikipedia-fake-academic-journal?bftw&utm_term=4ldqpfp#4ldqpfp >> > >> > Clearly there are some nefarious potential uses here, but what's more >> > concerning is that the WikiUK twitter account has come forward >> > forcefully saying that Wikipedia shouldn't be cited in the literature. >> > Period. >> > https://twitter.com/wikimediauk/status/1177215917534711808 >> > >> > I work very hard to improve the cite through my courses and academic >> > advocacy as do many librarians. It's concern to me to see Wikipedia >> > undermining its own authority in such a public way in what appears to >> be >> > a misguided attempt to deflect association with the MJournal site. >> > >> > Would welcome any insight or ideas on how to navigate this discussion. >> > The entire M-Journal use case exists, imho, because we are still >> > battling for a critical (not blanket acceptance) view of Wiki as a >> > resources, and I find this kind of public statement to be very damaging >> > to the hard work so many are doing to create a quality information >> resource. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Libraries mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries >> > _______________________________________________ > Libraries mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries >
_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
