Newslib Discussion about Wikipedia’s Reliability
A few days ago, some news researchers discussed Wikipedia’s reliability on Newslib. The conclusion many of them have made is that Wikipedia is a good starting point or a good way to get a general idea about a topic, but it should not be considered authoritative because of problems with its authority and reliability. Some news researchers discourage its use entirely because of those issues. One way librarians evaluate the trustworthiness of a source is by looking at the credentials of the authors and contributors. Because it is an anonymous source, Wikipedia readers don’t know anything about an article’s contributor(s) and her/his/their knowledge of the subject. One person mentioned the lack of cited sources. Readers can’t follow an information trail or learn where someone found the information.The idea that anyone can edit anything in any of the articles at any time also is a negative factor.
Someone who worked on a print encyclopedia mentioned they had problems correcting all of the errors in those books, showing misinformation can be problematic in other encyclopedia’s, too.
I responded with some information about the recent discussions about Wikipedia’s reliability and credibility that have been happening online and shared a link to the Wikis department on this blog, where I file items about Wikipedia.
Undertones of the idea that print sources could be more reliable than Web-based resources are in this discussion, too.
The above link to the Newslib discussion is restricted to discussion list members.
