Thanks for pointing out the link. A few of her comments are good, but
some of them are downright strange.
Frederick Noronha wrote:
Matei recommends Wikipedia be used as a search engine
that acts as a
springboard to other resources and that it never be cited as a primary
source of information. But before starting an Internet search, Matei
urges users to consult with a professional who can help focus their
research topic. After narrowing the topic, those in an academic
environment should then search for more literature on major article
databases from institutional organizations, such as ProQuest or
LexisNexis.
"Many of the papers found on these databases are reviewed by highly
qualified individuals and institutions," Matei says. "They are not
just very powerful and accessible search engines, they are also
excellent filters of information that can be easily sorted by topics,
subjects and time."
After a broader Internet search, Matei says the Wikipedia page can be
used to help clarify some specific questions or terms that the initial
research process has not been able to resolve.
This seems strangely self-contradictory, although to be fair that might
be the fault of the article writer instead of Ms. Matei's. It certainly
isn't how I, or anyone else I know, uses or would recommend using
Wikipedia. You resort to a paid professional *after* Wikipedia, not
*before*. Wikipedia is particularly good as a first glance, giving you
search terms you might not have heard of, pointeres to other related
topics, and in good articles an overview of the subject. And I'd argue
that unless people know what they're doing, a search of LexisNexis or
ProQuest (or Google Scholar) is likely to be much worse than browsing
the Wikipedia article as a first resource. A good Wikipedia article
puts all these sources in context, and so is infinitely better than the
raw listing of sources as a first reference. These databases are giant
archives of primary sources, *not* generally reviewed, interrelated, or
usefully commented upon. Honestly this part, especially with its focus
on paid professionals and pay-access archives, strikes me as a bit of
turf defense.
The suggestions further down about how to spot potentially questionable
Wikipedia articles are good ones, though.
-Mark