http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/68208681.html
Expert: Wikipedia Won't Go Away, So Learn How to Use It Contact: Maggie Morris, maggiemorris@purdue.edu; Sorin Matei, smatei@purdue.edu
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind., Feb. 23 /Standard Newswire/ -- The popularity of Wikipedia makes it important that users learn to use the online collaborative encyclopedia as a starting point for their research rather than as the final word, says a Purdue University communications expert.
"Students are addicted to Wikipedia, and teachers fight it with stern grading policies and restrictions on its use," says Sorin A. Matei, an assistant professor in the Department of Communication. "But Wikipedia is here to stay and, despite penalties, people are likely to continue using it."
Begun in 2001, Wikipedia is a popular online reference tool that allows Internet users to add and edit entries.
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. However, when using Wikipedia, the user should be on the lookout for possible errors and biases. Matei says a number of strategies can be used to uncover any bias or incorrect data that might be present, such as:
* Read the text carefully. Misspelling or poor grammar in Wikipedia entries could indicate that the information was added by a sloppy contributor.
* Check for missing well-known features of a particular story or concept.
* Value statements or citations that aren't credited are almost always suspicious.
* When Wikipedia entries justify value or factual statements by making reference to specific sources, the authority of the sources should always be checked using a number of criteria, including: Is the source cited from an institutional Web page or a formal publication of recognized academic, research, education or scholarly institution, such as a university, academic publishing house or journal site? Is the source reference complete? Does the source have an author or is it anonymous?
* The Wikipedia label "controversial" posted at the top of the article might indicate that the topic has created conflict and debate.
* There may be conflict among contributors even if the article is not labeled "controversial." Signs of conflict can be found under the "history" or "discussion" tabs that come with any Wikipedia entry.
-- FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please) http://fn.goa-india.org http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com What bloggers are saying about Goa: http://planet.goa-india.org/
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
Mark, very interesting comments. Just out of curiosity -- are you an information scientist, librarian, academic, or none of the above? :-) FN
PS: I don't mean to be poking fun. Just curious to know how different segments would see this issue. BTW, I'm a journalist, in India (Goa).
On 27/02/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
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.
I'm an academic, sort of, or future academic if you prefer (PhD student in Comp. Sci., in the U.S.).
To be clear, I find LexisNexis, JSTOR, and other archives very valuable, and I use them frequently. But there are a lot of pitfalls, especially if you don't already know something about the subject you're searching for. I certainly wouldn't recommend "search the databases" as a good first step for an undergraduate trying to learn about a subject. Wikipedia is sometimes (when the article isn't bad) a better first resource, and textbooks and other encyclopedias (especially subject-specific encyclopedias) are also good options. Then once someone has learned a little bit about the subject, they know how to decide which original journal articles or news articles to search for and read, and how to interpret them in appropriate context.
I actually thought that's what this article was saying, from the beginning part, but when it gets further towards the end of the article it starts saying that the databases should be the first resource, with Wikipedia used later to look up specific information---and that seems exactly backwards.
-Mark
Frederick "FN" Noronha wrote:
Mark, very interesting comments. Just out of curiosity -- are you an information scientist, librarian, academic, or none of the above? :-) FN
PS: I don't mean to be poking fun. Just curious to know how different segments would see this issue. BTW, I'm a journalist, in India (Goa).
On 27/02/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
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.
Frederick "FN" Noronha wrote:
Mark, very interesting comments. Just out of curiosity -- are you an information scientist, librarian, academic, or none of the above? :-) FN
PS: I don't mean to be poking fun. Just curious to know how different segments would see this issue. BTW, I'm a journalist, in India (Goa).
On 27/02/07, Delirium wrote:
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.
A lot too depends on how central the Wikipedia information is to your central thesis. Thus if you are writing about the 20th century literature in Portuguese India, the Wikipedia article may be an adequate one for establishing the historical background.
Mark's point is well taken. Not everyone is suited to detailed methodical research, and interpretation of raw information. The maxim that because you pay for something it must be of better quality is fallacious. Perhaps they only magnify the false sense of security.
Ec
Hoi, Misspellings or grammatical errors may also indicate non native speakers of a language. Certainly when the subject is foreign (from an English language pov) it may indicate that the factual quality is actually better.
Many of the biases are systemic. There are subjects where there are resident "gurus" who do not permit with their clique that a more international pov is given. One example I stumbled over is the subject of "fundamentalism" where it was not accepted that it is not only used in a religious context.
Sources currently provided are predominantly English language based. This is in and of itself a big bias.
Thanks, GerardM
On 2/27/07, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org wrote:
http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/68208681.html
Expert: Wikipedia Won't Go Away, So Learn How to Use It Contact: Maggie Morris, maggiemorris@purdue.edu; Sorin Matei, smatei@purdue.edu
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind., Feb. 23 /Standard Newswire/ -- The popularity of Wikipedia makes it important that users learn to use the online collaborative encyclopedia as a starting point for their research rather than as the final word, says a Purdue University communications expert.
"Students are addicted to Wikipedia, and teachers fight it with stern grading policies and restrictions on its use," says Sorin A. Matei, an assistant professor in the Department of Communication. "But Wikipedia is here to stay and, despite penalties, people are likely to continue using it."
Begun in 2001, Wikipedia is a popular online reference tool that allows Internet users to add and edit entries.
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. However, when using Wikipedia, the user should be on the lookout for possible errors and biases. Matei says a number of strategies can be used to uncover any bias or incorrect data that might be present, such as:
* Read the text carefully. Misspelling or poor grammar inWikipedia entries could indicate that the information was added by a sloppy contributor.
* Check for missing well-known features of a particular story orconcept.
* Value statements or citations that aren't credited are almostalways suspicious.
* When Wikipedia entries justify value or factual statements bymaking reference to specific sources, the authority of the sources should always be checked using a number of criteria, including: Is the source cited from an institutional Web page or a formal publication of recognized academic, research, education or scholarly institution, such as a university, academic publishing house or journal site? Is the source reference complete? Does the source have an author or is it anonymous?
* The Wikipedia label "controversial" posted at the top of thearticle might indicate that the topic has created conflict and debate.
* There may be conflict among contributors even if the article isnot labeled "controversial." Signs of conflict can be found under the "history" or "discussion" tabs that come with any Wikipedia entry.
-- FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please) http://fn.goa-india.org http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com What bloggers are saying about Goa: http://planet.goa-india.org/
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Overall, how accurate is the view that a publication from a "large house" would be more reliable? I live in a small part of India (Goa), and know that the large and established publishing houses (both national and international, including Britannica) are always either promoting stereotypes of our region... or simply getting it wrong. And there's nothing one can do to correct that either...
Are there any facts and figures about the accuracy levels of Wikipedia? I remember Jimbo Wales was citing some figures about Britannica versus Wikipedia. Wonder if there's some citation for that. Academia, in particular, seems unnerved by an encyclopedia written in the "baazar" model, rather than in "cathedral" mode (as Eric Raymond would argue). FN
On 27/02/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Misspellings or grammatical errors may also indicate non native speakers of a language. Certainly when the subject is foreign (from an English language pov) it may indicate that the factual quality is actually better....
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 07:39:21PM +0530, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org wrote a message of 28 lines which said:
Are there any facts and figures about the accuracy levels of Wikipedia? I remember Jimbo Wales was citing some figures about Britannica versus Wikipedia. Wonder if there's some citation for that.
Use a good encyclopedia to find them :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britannica#Internet_encyclopedias
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org