[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's provable anti-expertise bias

[Kat Walsh]

On 11/19/05, Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch at gmail.com> wrote:
> The academics at my uni think the wikipedia is mildly offensive, in
> the sense that they enjoy being paid to write
> books/journals/whathaveyou, and don't enjoy seeing amateurs giving it
> away for free. Because of this, and our noticable failings, students
> are penalised if they attempt to cite the wikipedia as a source at my
> uni.
>
> I just now returned from an 8 hour seminar wherein we were repeatedly
> informed that free, non-governmental information on the internet is
> dubious at best, and should be avoided for anything other than
> commercial or general knowledge queries. Instead, the online
> university  database was praised (it includes a subscription to
> britannica, btw ;)
>
> Jack (Sam Spade)

Well, I'd've gotten penalized for citing Wikipedia too, but I'd also
have gotten penalized for citing Britannica. However, various features
of Wikipedia made it much better as a quick study aid than the more
academically respectable references, and no one was ever the wiser.
And it is good as a study aid -- but most university students I know
*need* to be cautioned that not everything they read on the internet
that looks legit is true. (I love Wikipedia, and I am an optimist,
but, well...)

-Kat
[[User:Mindspillage]]
wannabe academic

--
"There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily
escaped the chronicler's mind."  --Douglas Adams