NYT headline today: A Contributor to Wikipedia Has His Fictional Side
I have long been skeptical of Wikipedia. I always cringe a bit when I hear someone say they use or encourage the use of Wikipedia for academic research. My concern is with the communal nature of the content – anyone can post just about anything. And although there are pages and pages of guidelines to try to protect the integrity of the information found there, it all still lies at the mercy of humans who can largely remain anonymous, or as this recent story notes, lie about who they are.
Reading this story simultaneously bolsters my skepticism, and softens it.
My cynical side says this is a cautionary tale: Don’t trust anything in Wikipedia. But it looks like the impostor’s editorial content and contributions were solid (although in one of the examples cited, he goofs on the word “it’s”{easy mistake, which I forgive}) despite his fake credentials. AND ultimately the community policed itself calling attention to the fraud.
Hmmmm. I think the potential of Wikipedia and its implications are awesome. I guess I just have trust issues when it comes to reference material. That's not really a bad thing, is it?
No comments:
Post a Comment