Comments on: Wikipedia in the News http://acrlog.org/2006/07/07/wikipedia-in-the-news/ Blogging by and for academic and research librarians Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:17:25 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: checkers instructions http://acrlog.org/2006/07/07/wikipedia-in-the-news/comment-page-1/#comment-114887 checkers instructions Wed, 25 Feb 2009 07:25:28 +0000 http://acrlblog.org/2006/07/07/wikipedia-in-the-news/#comment-114887 Examination of Wikipedia, Rory Lit win of Library Juice points to this article by Roy Rosenzweig, Professor of History and New Media at George Mason Rosenzweig’s piece discusses the differences between professional historians and amateur Wikipedia, Wikipedia’s obsession with Neutral Point of View and compares Wikipedia to Microsoft’s Encarta and the American National Biography Online.Many news outlets picked up with apparent glee a story that (gasp!) Wikipedia had a number of facts wrong about Ken Lay’s death.professional historians should be more involved in Wikipedia to improve its accuracy and writing quality and concludes that they should be, without being naive about questions about how such activity would count for tenure and promotion.thanks for this great advice and i appreciate to your efforts. Examination of Wikipedia, Rory Lit win of Library Juice points to this article by Roy Rosenzweig, Professor of History and New Media at George Mason Rosenzweig’s piece discusses the differences between professional historians and amateur Wikipedia, Wikipedia’s obsession with Neutral Point of View and compares Wikipedia to Microsoft’s Encarta and the American National Biography Online.Many news outlets picked up with apparent glee a story that (gasp!) Wikipedia had a number of facts wrong about Ken Lay’s death.professional historians should be more involved in Wikipedia to improve its accuracy and writing quality and concludes that they should be, without being naive about questions about how such activity would count for tenure and promotion.thanks for this great advice and i appreciate to your efforts.

]]> By: Michael Knee http://acrlog.org/2006/07/07/wikipedia-in-the-news/comment-page-1/#comment-9369 Michael Knee Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:30:41 +0000 http://acrlblog.org/2006/07/07/wikipedia-in-the-news/#comment-9369 I'm not sure if the information about Ken Lay in Wikipedia is correct or not. However, many mainstream news service like the New York Times and the Washington Post publish misinformation. I'm not sure if they do it on purpose, or if they just can't get the facts straight. It's probably a combination of both. They also plagiarize and editorialize news stories. I’m not sure if the information about Ken Lay in Wikipedia is correct or not. However, many mainstream news service like the New York Times and the Washington Post publish misinformation. I’m not sure if they do it on purpose, or if they just can’t get the facts straight. It’s probably a combination of both. They also plagiarize and editorialize news stories.

]]> By: Stephen Downes http://acrlog.org/2006/07/07/wikipedia-in-the-news/comment-page-1/#comment-9355 Stephen Downes Fri, 07 Jul 2006 13:19:14 +0000 http://acrlblog.org/2006/07/07/wikipedia-in-the-news/#comment-9355 I don't think there was anything false in Wikipedia. The account of the different entries seems to correspond with what was known at the time. It is hardly fair to expect Wikipedia to report correctly on events that have not yet taken place. In the meantime, I am not aware of any other encyclopedia that has an entry on Kenneth Lay, let alone any currently reporting that he is dead. So when compared to all other encyclopedias, Wikipedia comes out way ahead. Given this, I think a few moments' uncertainty is understandable. It is also worth noting that Reuters doesn't have any forum allowing readers to clarify the article and offer a more accurate perspective on Wikipedia. All of that said, I agree, why aren’t scholarly projects like American National Biography Online freely available? And why can't we help write them? I don’t think there was anything false in Wikipedia. The account of the different entries seems to correspond with what was known at the time. It is hardly fair to expect Wikipedia to report correctly on events that have not yet taken place.

In the meantime, I am not aware of any other encyclopedia that has an entry on Kenneth Lay, let alone any currently reporting that he is dead. So when compared to all other encyclopedias, Wikipedia comes out way ahead. Given this, I think a few moments’ uncertainty is understandable.

It is also worth noting that Reuters doesn’t have any forum allowing readers to clarify the article and offer a more accurate perspective on Wikipedia.

All of that said, I agree, why aren’t scholarly projects like American National Biography Online freely available? And why can’t we help write them?

]]>