“..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!
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Tips for minimizing teacher stress
- Discover 10 stress-busting secrets for healthy teachers. What simple routines will help you handle the stress?
- Simple advice for coping with stress at work.
- Learn tips to help you deal with difficult colleagues and students (even those who "hate" you -- yes it is possible!)