Peter Kai Jensen wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
'Wikipedia, has been banned as a source for students at Middlebury
College in Vermont. .. Because of the errors, Middlebury's history
department recently instituted the ban'
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/55789.html
They fear the unknown, don't they?
Perhaps, but I have to agree with them on this one. At college level
and above, one should *never* cite tertiary sources, which includes
encyclopedias and in that also Wikipedia. However, as a university
Not necessarily. A textbook could be considered a tertiary source.
Furthermore, there is also so-called "original research" on Wikipedia.
What if a bona fide researcher releases his paper under a Creative
Commons license and it sits on his college department's web site, or he
maintains high-quality Wikipedia articles with direct bearing to his
research?
I took bricks&mortar math courses under one such person:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AxelBoldt
student I find it to be an invaluable source of starting-points for
digging up further information. Most important Wikipedia articles cite
the books and scientific articles that are the basis of the Wikipedia
article. It's also great for a quick refreshing of formulas and
procedures that I know fairly well, but need to make sure I remember
correctly. I could just find the appropriate textbook, but it's
considerably faster to look it up on Wikipedia, and any inaccuracies
will stand out since I already know the material.
Having worked in a Big-10 research library the past 7 years and been
involved in some open source projects, I'm convinced beyond any doubt
that it's indicative of radical culture clash, and the old guard is,
beyond any shred of doubt, going to lose.
A HUGE (historically anomalous) amount of information flow today (with
the exception of multimedia) is grassroots, anarchic, bottom-up,
peer-to-peer, person-to-person. It's also highly democratic/anarchic in
nature, indicative of a whole new world outlook.
The old system was predicated on non-democratic control of information,
and has whored out the whole meaning of the term "publish" (which means,
literally, 'to make public'). Just look at the sorry state of college
textbooks, running through new editions for sole sake of deprecating
used copies, environmental wastes of paper, and the costs to students
are enormous. Or witness the online equivalents -- academic libraries
spend astronomical sums to subscribe to some of these journals.
Perhaps the most ironic aspect is that researchers (in public
institutions) are paid by public tax dollars & student tuition...they
are required by the colleges and departments to publish in prestigious
closed-source journals. In doing so, they sign away many
use/dissemination rights, and the university has to buy them back again
-- at additional expense (and still limited) use rights.
And we're supposed to trust information coming out of this kind of
system more than any other?
I should think not. The old library, and the old university, are
missing the boat. They are no longer forerunners on the information
landscape. They've been too co-opted by their vendors' propaganda about
what's good for students (making blanket statements about "authority"
and equating that to presumably paid venues) that they're starting to
dig their own graves.
For instance, I presented a poster session at an ACRL (Association of
College & Research Libraries) convention here in Minneapolis a couple
years ago. The floorspace was about 90%+ dedicated to vendors and
publishers, and those of us from academia were pushed off to the side,
with barely any space at all. This physical/spatial arrangement is
indicative of who's really running the show. Neither the libraries,
technologists, researchers -- or facts themselves. It's horse shit from
the information gatekeeping/leeching industries.
|
|
