Karl Fish has a great post commenting on the recent article in the Denver Post that 4 out of 5 experts agree on the accuracy of wikipedia, Karl says.
“..there was no mention of whether any of the scholars contributed to the Wikipedia article they were reviewing…. It’s not like I expect the reviewers to take hours (or days) to clean up the articles, but you would think they might take an extra five or ten minutes to modify a few things since they’re there anyway. It almost seems like the thought never crosses their minds – or at least the mind of the reporter. It seems like such an obvious question to ask, and include the answer in the article.
… I find it interesting that the print version doesn’t include the URL for Wikipedia (much less for the particular topics), and that the online version doesn’t include links.
Here is what I said in response:
I agree – here is the difference — the expert can actually EDIT the entry (novel idea) so that the information IS accurate — can they do that with an encyclopedia? Can they do that with a magazine article?
Experts everywhere should be climbing into wikipedia and editing and not just reviewing.
I think the fact that the experts were asked to read and not write was a Web 2 article written in a very Web 1 way. Perhaps if they had been asked to review and edit and see if the information remained accurate would be a better measure of wikipedia's accuracy.
I had to share, this topic will really get me going!
tag: Wikipedia, Karl Fisch
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Never miss an episode
Get the 10-minute Teacher Show delivered to your inbox.
Thank you for subscribing to the 10 Minute Teacher! Now, check your email and confirm to get this podcast delivered to you every weekday. Check out our past episodes at www.coolcatteacher.com/podcast
1 comment
OK, that was a pretty fast post!
I still haven’t heard back from the reporter – I’m hoping that maybe he’s contacting the five scholars and asking them my question about whether they edited their respective articles, but that’s probably wishful thinking.
Comments are closed.