Home
| Wikipedia is not a valid source |
|
|
| Written by Erin Harty - Argonaut | ||||||
| Monday, 14 September 2009 | ||||||
|
People used to buy encyclopedias from traveling salesmen. That’s right,
people actually walked door-to-door selling leather bound volumes of
information. Often, due to their high cost, a person might have
purchased only one book at a time or half the alphabet until they could
afford to finish their collection. Encyclopedias were expensive, but
their information was valuable. At almost $1400 for the 2010 set of
Encyclopedia Britannica, encyclopedias are still expensive, but they
don’t seem to be as valued.
People don’t buy encyclopedias in print as much as they used to, not just because of the expense and the question of where to store 26 – 20 pound books, but also because the Internet has made it possible to look up just about anything. Even online versions of encyclopedias are fading. MSN recently announced they would discontinue their Encarta pages and subscription services in October. Their Web site gives this explanation: “the category of traditional encyclopedias and reference material has changed. People today seek and consume information in considerably different ways than in years past.” What they really mean is, people don’t use traditional encyclopedias written by people who have done extensive research. Instead, they use Wikipedia. Wikipedia, billed as the “free encyclopedia,” is not really an encyclopedia at all but an online magazine written by volunteers who do not need to have any specialized knowledge on anything at all. The Web site says the content is mainly based on anonymous contributions. Anyone who can access the Web site can make changes to articles. I find it odd that someone who has extensive knowledge of a subject wouldn’t want the world to know his or her name. Wikipedia specifically states, “Visitors do not need specialized qualifications to contribute.” Does this make anyone else leery? This means an 11-year-old, who thinks Super Mario Galaxy is based on real planets, could write or edit the entry on the solar system. I hear students say to one another all the time, “Just look it up on Wikipedia.” That is fine if you want to know what other people think they know, but what about when you want some well researched information on a subject? When a student is writing a paper on Mussolini’s Doctrine of Fascism or Rosa Parks and segregation is it better to get information from encyclopedias in the library and other reference materials there, or from anonymous sources on a Web site that offers a disclaimer warning they cannot guarantee their content? So why do so many students think they can cite Wikipedia as a source for papers and other work? Because Wikipedia is easy. It doesn’t require going to the library and putting time in looking up reference material or heaven forbid, asking a librarian for guidance. Wikipedia is a way for students to take the easy way out and rely on anonymous sources for what could be inaccurate information. The University of Idaho library may not be the most relaxing or inviting place to visit, but there is a ton of valuable information on its four floors. Things like census numbers, newspaper archives, biographies and even encyclopedias. Wikipedia use cannot be conquered overnight (in some instances, it may require intervention), but once it has been overcome, your mind will thank you and so will your instructors. Comment on this article at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it  Add as favorites (39) | Views: 1203
Write Comment
|
||||||
