[Wikipedia-l] in response to your article "Librarian: Don't use Wikipedia as source" in the Post-Standard

Dear Mr. Fasoldt, dear Ms. Stagnitta, I am writing in response to your article "Librarian: Don't use Wikipedia as source" in the Post-Standard. I. I would like to strongly second what fellow Wikipedia contributor Mathias Schindler recently wrote to you (see his email below). Mathias observed that the Wikipedia is not alone in having a disclaimer as regards the accuracy and validity of our content. He pointed out that the Encyclopaedia Britannica also has a legal disclaimer. To that I would also like to add what fellow contributor Pcb21 has found: Practically ALL encyclopaedias have such disclaimers: II. You wrote that there was no editorial review at the Wikipedia. This is incorrect. Our articles DO undergo substantial editorial review. However, contrary to how paper-based encyclopedias operate, editorial review at the Wikipedia takes place AFTER publication. Our system works as follows: - A user makes a submission, for instance he or she edits an article or creates a new one. - EVERY submission (to any article) automatically causes the article in question to be added to this machine-generated list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges - EVERY article change is tracked in the article's history. - By clicking an article's "diff" link on the Recent changes page, it can be seen precisely WHAT was changed. - A large number of users regularly patrol the Recent changes page. Considering the 24/7, worldwide nature of our encyclopedia, there is hardly ever an article that would pass through Recent changes unchecked. If there is a mistake, it is very likely to get spotted and it can be changed instantly once spotted (our readers don't have to write a letter to the publisher). There also is a separate page for newly created articles (also auto-generated): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Newpages These are not the only tools we use for editorial review of our articles: This template (which is included in many of our procedural and administrative pages) lists but a few: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Resources_for_collaboration As you can see, there are a large number of ways in which we conduct editorial review, even if errors get past Recent changes. III. You also questioned the authority of our site and whether our content is well-researched. I am going to tell you something I am not really supposed to: If you doubt the standards of our editorial review mechanisms, go try and introduce some decidedly un-encyclopaedic (unproven, contentious and/or unacademic, etc.) information into an article of your choice. Then check back and see how long your contribution will remain in the article. My confidence is high that -- depending on how much this contribution falls short of encyclopedic standards -- you will find your contribution challenged on the respective article's discussion page (where you will likely be asked to provide references for your claims) or outright removed. Your concerns over the quality of our content are however justified in one respect: At any given point in time, it is possible that a mistake (or vandalism) has just been introduced to an article you're retrieving. Users are thus encouraged to check any article's history -- a tremendous tool for readers and contributors alike: As an example, let's look at the CGA article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_Graphics_Adapter You will note the "history" tab. Clicking it takes you to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml? title=Color_Graphics_Adapter&action=history On this page, you can see and compare every previous version of the article. You can compare these versions and easily see precisely WHAT was changed. As an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml? title=Color_Graphics_Adapter&diff=5388826&oldid=5388760 If someone eg. vandalizes an article, it will almost certainly be quickly caught and reverted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert). Especially popular and contentious articles do regularly get vandalized. But never for long. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=George_W._Bush&action=history or http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=John_Kerry&action=history Note how little time typically elapses until vandalism is corrected. IV. Many of us believe that it is beneficial to make it as EASY as possible to contribute to our encyclopedia. The traditional approach to writing encyclopedias, to aggregating human knowledge, has been to make it as DIFFICULT as possible to contribute. You have to obtain formal certifications and undergo formal training to be even allowed to contribute. This is done in the hope of reaching and maintaining high standards. Many of us believe that this however stifles progress as it excludes all knowledge and knowledge-based skills obtained in any other way (than formal accreditation). We put a process in place that will accept all comers in the first instance -- and combine and distill these collective contributions to reach high standards. Our daily growth and quality improvement shows that the traditional approach -- only allowing very few select individuals to contribute -- wastes enormous talent, potential and opportunity for progress in all fields of human knowledge. Thus, one of our core operating principles is to lower any bars to entry as much as possible, if not to outright abolish them. Anyone can contribute. You don't need to provide certifications. You don't need to show ID or a credit card. You don't need to give an email address. You don't even need to log in or create an account. You can edit. Because you have UNIQUE knowledge skills. Dr. Pyotr Anokhin calculated that the number of possible combinations in the human brain was 10 to the power of 799 (seven hundred ninety nine). In short, NO ONE on this planet will ever have the same thoughts as you. It thus makes sense for us to be as inclusive as possible. We would be honored to welcome your contribution to our modest but growing record of human knowledge. If you have any remaining doubts about our potential to deliver the the most comprehensive, comprehensible and correct encyclopedia on the planet, please refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page#lang The irony of course is that you will probably now find yourself doing the exact same thing we do all of the time: Review and correct your Post-Standard article AFTER publication. That doesn't necessarily make your publication a worse information source -- as long as you DO correct inaccuracies where found. Yours sincerely, -- Jens Ropers Wikipedia contributor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ropers www.ropersonline.com PS: Oh, and as for "accredited scientists", "academics" and "intellectuals"? We're "building it" -- and they are coming.