More Play for Wikipedia…and a Rant from me.
October 26th, 2004Yet another article on Wikipedia, this time from the Guardian. A few interesting quotes, one from librarian Phil Bradley (who apparently didn’t like his quote):
“”Theoretically, it’s a lovely idea,” says librarian and Internet consultant Philip Bradley, “but practically, I wouldn’t use it; and I’m not aware of a single librarian who would. The main problem is the lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data is reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, all that goes out the window.”
Bradley may not be aware of a “single librarian” that uses Wikipedia, but I’m not sure that we need to focus on librarians here. We “know” to triple check our web searches with other “reliable” publications. A no-brainer. The question is, do our patrons know? That’s the key, IMO. Our patrons are searching the “Big G” (let’s not kid ourselves here, he says while kvetching to himself) and finding other unreliable information. It doesn’t have to be from Wikipedia.
I was speaking to a librarian recently about searching the Web for research purposes. I said that the bigger the databases got, and the more money that advertisers pour into them (they pay the bills, right?) the harder it will be to find reliable information. The librarians answer? “It may not be the answer, but it may be good enough”.
Is that where we are as a profession? Answers just have to be “good enough” now? I hate to be dismal about where our profession is going (and I rarely am - I leave that to others), but that’s a terrible way to practice librarianship. So, one librarian doesn’t think that any librarians are using Wikipedia because of its reliability issues and another is saying that finding information on the Web that is “good enough” is….well, “good enough”? Where’s the consistency? Google answers can be good enough. Answering reference questions and teaching our patrons research has to be perfect. Not good enough, not fine, not excellent, but perfect. (link via Future Now)