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-…
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.