How Wikipedia is like a gas station—and some quick tips
Don’t want water in your automobile’s gasoline tank? Then fuel up at a busy gas station.
And the same’s true with Wikipedia. Generally, not always, entries on popular topics are more reliable than those on more arcane ones. Just be careful about entries which could draw a steady stream of partisan edits.
Such thoughts came to me while I was reading a Wikipedia-related column from Paul Gilster, an author, blogger and contributor to the Raleigh News & Observer, who pointed out the popularity-reliability correlation. Originally he was a Wikipedia skeptic, but he has since come around around—while, appropriately, warning that you still need to be wary. Paul also suggests going to the source sites mentioned in citations.
At the same time, as the author of Centauri Dreams, a blog on deep space, Paul points to the value of Wikipedia for keeping up to date on arcane scientific subject—on which it can be more timely than, say, the Britannica.
Related: Free subscriptions and widgets for bloggers—from Encyclopedia Britannica.
Popularity: 3% [?]
May 9th, 2008 at 5:37 am
See also my explanation about my decision last week to leave Wikipedia permanently .
May 9th, 2008 at 8:24 am
I used to be a Wikipedia skeptic as well. But now, while I still take the articles with a grain of salt, I enjoy using the site as a quick reference. Any real research I do, however, still requires a trip to the good ‘ol library!