Librarians' Claims and Opinions Regarding Wikipedia
This page is intended to be an index of statements about Wikipedia from librarians, each with its own page where the claim is articulated and sourced, and then responses are enumerated and sourced. The sources can be links to archived email messages or threads or blog entries or publications that capture a particular argument well. Links into Wikipedia's documentation would also be useful.
The aim is to capture and maintain a snapshot of librarians' thinking about Wikipedia, so that discussions of the topic don't have to rehash the same ground endlessly.
Feel free to add to the list and create and edit the pages.
Claims, Statements, Opinions
- Wikipedia is not authoritative
- Wikipedia should not be cited in academic work
- Librarians should contribute their skills to Wikipedia
- Wikipedia is rough amalgamation of several kinds of specialist encyclopedias
- Why Wiki? 1-hour videocast gives a guided tour of Wikipedia
- Jimmy Wales Text/audio of an interview with the Wikipedia founder
- It's a Wiki, Wiki World Time cover story
- The Online Disinhibition Effect
- A false Wikipedia 'biography' The first shot in the John Seigenthaler Sr. controversy
- Did he or didn't he?: wiki-ing Ken Lay's death Wrap-up on the Wikipedia edits and news coverage following Lay's death
- Internet encyclopaedias go head to head The Nature study which riled Britannica
- Wikipedia and Britannica Searcher magazine's analysis by Paula Berinstein
- I Have The Power Comic strip (and news) addressing Wikipedia vandals
- An embarrassing mistake First-hand account of the perils of trusting Wikipedia blindly
- What About Wikipedia? and Wikipedia Revisited from Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large, reviews "Wikipedia vs. Britannica" and Citizendium
- An empirical examination of Wikipedia's credibility Experts found Wikipedia’s articles more credible than non–experts
- Wikipedia is good for academia by a history professor