Breaking down the nonsense about Wikipedia
Jared Fagerberg
Issue date: 11/2/09 Section: Opinion
We all know the temptation: it's 3 in the morning on a Wednesday and you're suckin' down the last drops of a 5-Hour Energy trying to belt out a mid term on the Protestant Reformation. You turn to your old friend Google to get you started and your mouse hesitantly hovers over the first search result: "Protestant Reformation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia."
You know you can't cite Wikipedia; it would compromise the integrity of your whole piece. But, on the other hand, it would be so easy. After all, Wikipedia is the SparkNotes of the known universe. Everything is organized so perfectly, summed up in a simple, consumable package. Inevitably, you cave and cite a few empty sources you may have glanced at, print your slapdash masterpiece and hit the sack by 5.
Like so many things in life, Wikipedia could be perfect. In a world where CiCi's five-dollar pizza didn't have the consistency of wet cardboard and that Nigerian prince who's been e-mailing you in fractured English really did have a misplaced inheritance to share, Wikipedia would be the go-to source for all things academic. Professors would sit at their mahogany desks and smoke fine tobaccos from curly pipes editing pages on Gloria Estefan and bean bag chairs, all the while citing National Geographic.
Unfortunately, that isn't the case. Wikipedia has been deemed "unsubstantial," "inaccurate" and "downright cockamamie" (citation needed) by the academic community, leading some to go as far as questioning its standing as an encyclopedia at all. Michael Gorman, a high-brow, swanky-swanky librarian, condemned Wikipedia in 2007 saying that people who endorse Wikipedia are "the intellectual equivalent of a dietitian who recommends a steady diet of Big Macs with everything."
Despite the self-righteous hyperbole, this is a logical assessment. Wikipedia can be freely edited by the masses and the masses have sordid academic backgrounds and biases to uphold. Hell, even Wikipedia agrees with its critics. To quote Wikipedia's article on Wikipedia (oh, I went there), "Wikipedia's open nature and a lack of proper sources for much of the information makes it unreliable."
You know you can't cite Wikipedia; it would compromise the integrity of your whole piece. But, on the other hand, it would be so easy. After all, Wikipedia is the SparkNotes of the known universe. Everything is organized so perfectly, summed up in a simple, consumable package. Inevitably, you cave and cite a few empty sources you may have glanced at, print your slapdash masterpiece and hit the sack by 5.
Like so many things in life, Wikipedia could be perfect. In a world where CiCi's five-dollar pizza didn't have the consistency of wet cardboard and that Nigerian prince who's been e-mailing you in fractured English really did have a misplaced inheritance to share, Wikipedia would be the go-to source for all things academic. Professors would sit at their mahogany desks and smoke fine tobaccos from curly pipes editing pages on Gloria Estefan and bean bag chairs, all the while citing National Geographic.
Unfortunately, that isn't the case. Wikipedia has been deemed "unsubstantial," "inaccurate" and "downright cockamamie" (citation needed) by the academic community, leading some to go as far as questioning its standing as an encyclopedia at all. Michael Gorman, a high-brow, swanky-swanky librarian, condemned Wikipedia in 2007 saying that people who endorse Wikipedia are "the intellectual equivalent of a dietitian who recommends a steady diet of Big Macs with everything."
Despite the self-righteous hyperbole, this is a logical assessment. Wikipedia can be freely edited by the masses and the masses have sordid academic backgrounds and biases to uphold. Hell, even Wikipedia agrees with its critics. To quote Wikipedia's article on Wikipedia (oh, I went there), "Wikipedia's open nature and a lack of proper sources for much of the information makes it unreliable."
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 2
Gregory Kohs
posted 11/02/09 @ 12:07 PM EST
It sounds like Wikipedia is perfect for a student with the intellectual discernment of a Jared Fagerberg. Just pray your research doesn't involve the "consumer economy":
http://wikipediareview. (Continued…)
Post a Comment