 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
TIPS for Using Wikipedia
In last month’s newsletter, I asked for input on how you use Wikipedia. Below are some excerpts highlighting the responses. The Negatives: “I don’t use Wikipedia. I think it is of questionable value.” “I use wiki as an alternative source … and rely only on protected pages. Unprotected pages are anyone’s toy in the wikipedia sandbox.” “In my profession, having accurate information is everything. I use another resource rather than take the chance that the information may not be accurate.” “I use Wikipedia to look up information on fun things such as Star Wars characters. I do not rely on it for data that I really need to be accurate.” “Unlike any other cited reference, Wikipedia may change by the time someone goes back to look at it. Note, the issue is NOT so much that the information may be wrong (even horrifically wrong) -- this may be the case with any reference -- but that the cited source may be unreproducable.” The Positives: "I feel I’m getting a broader view of things. It’s a collaborative effort, not one company’s slant on a topic. I like that people can challenge the content and mark it as ‘in dispute’.” “The formal encyclopedia is typically the work of a single author in any particular area and is often subject to the bias of that author. With Wikipedia, you effectively get worldwide review.” “When I google a topic, I’ll often go first to the Wikipedia sites that show on the google search. The Wikipedia articles in my field seem quite accurate.” “I used it for statistics on population … this info was cited as coming from the US Census and subsequent follow up surveys done by the census board.” “I use Wikipedia primarily to understand technology concepts to help compress my learning curve. I appreciate the hyperlinked content in a Wikipedia entry that often leads to related concepts, providing an even deeper understanding…” “I use wiki to search on concepts that I may not be familiar with - more like a dictionary. In this way, I am not too concerned with the level of expertise.” “I use Wikipedia as a research tool as the quality and depth of information is usually very good. I do have some concerns as to the accuracy at times but logically speaking, it is likely to be at least as accurate as a more formal encyclopedia.” The Cautious: “I would never rely on it as fact without confirming the information with at least one other, more reliable source. I would prefer to see the information confirmed by at least TWO other respected sources.” "For my purposes, the information is accurate. For the most part I’m not looking up anything controversial or subjective. But I could certainly see why one should take the information presented there with a grain of salt and use it as one data point amidst others. In a way, the GIGO principle (garbage in/garbage out) applies.” "In areas of ‘pure’ science, information is easily verified by that review process; e.g., the number of electrons around an atom is well known. Mistakes of that sort are found quickly and corrected. In other areas such as world history, the combined opinions of multiple authors as to what happened and/or the reasons that certain events occurred are much more valuable than the opinions and limited scope of a single author.” "In general, I find that Wikipedia tends to include all popular, and often some ‘not so popular’ and less conventional, thoughts on various subjects. The result is that the reader has a chance to review the possibilities and determine for themselves which theories and collections they find most believable.” In Conclusion: It’s clear that Wikipedia is a huge and productive resource – when used effectively. While there are risks in using the information, those risks can be reduced by checking the sources and getting a second source. The upside is that you get the benefit of the input from knowledgeable authors from throughout the world. Many thanks to all who responded! I certainly learned a great deal from your input and hope you find this summary useful. It will be interesting to see how the U.S. Patent Office decides to proceed with the “wiki-approach” to reviewing patent applications. Regards, Jean D. Sifleet, Esq., CPA eNews
Subscribe: |
