a question for experts

[macwilkin]

I want to jump in and speak in defense of Wikipedia. First of all, they are the number one source of information on matters that most other information resources consider themselves too good for- TV programming being a minor but typical example- I'll wager one will find little on one's more minor-celebrity ancestors elsewhere. And true, anyone can alter most Wiki things and honest and dishonest errors can and do occur but I have actually seen more on the 'B' encyclopedia's web site and others- in fact those of us that use such resources for work purposes find the non-W sites laughable much of the time and no longer care to pay for them. So sure, check Wiki entries but they deserve respect for the very major internet resource they are!

Someday I may find myself running down the street and yelling, in the same manner the disturbed lady did for Brittany Spears, "LEAVE WIKI ALONE!"

As a librarian and a college instructor, I loathe Wikipedia because it (and google, for that matter) has become a research "crutch" for many students who don't want to crack a book or get their hands "dirty" researching.

We have a great poster in our library entitled "10 Reasons Why a Library is Better than the Internet", which is similar to the one found on this web page:

http://www.brcc.edu/library/10%20rea...20internet.htm

And yes, I know -- the irony of that list being on a web page!

While I don't necessarily believe Wikipedia is the Devil, it certainly is the lazy way to research. I tell my students that if they must use it, don't cite it -- see what sources may be listed on the article, and use them, provided they'r reliable.

Of course, the old Cold War mantra of "Trust, but verify" should apply to ANY source.

Regards,

Todd