Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
Is a snapshot
of a wall plaque different because it's taken by a
reference librarian as opposed to a Wikipedian?
--Michael Snow
Well, that was a jocular aside, my point being that the wall plaque
is very significantly harder for me to obtain than any of fourteen
million-odd books in my state's "library of last resort."
But in fact there _is_ an _obvious_ difference, and it is much the
same difference that exists between a contributor to the Britannica
or _Nature_ or the New York Times. A reference librarian is a) a
known person with a known real-world identity, with b) professional
credentials and a code of ethics. (One to which, of course, an
individual librarian may or may not adhere).
As much as I like to believe that librarians are more honest and
trustworthy than other professionals, this approach puts us on the
slippery slope of believing the person instead of the information. Even
with the publications that you mention there is a presumption that they
put some effort into fact-checking. Certain comparisons between
Wikipedia and Britannica, and a few events in the news in the last year
about the New York Times have shown that these highly reputed
institutions have not yet attained perfection. Whether the author of
such articles is identified should make no difference.
We want prople to doubt and be critical rather than develop a debt of
idolatry to the professionals.
Ec