Hi all - Thanks for the responses. Regardless of our individual practices, I don't see any good coming from Wikipedia positively asserting that it should "never be cited," and that's the crux of my concern here.
Best, Kathleen On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 1:17 PM Paul S. Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
