Wikipedia a Pariah? Not Really, Say Campus Interviewees
-- Library Journal, 4/6/2007
Wikipedia may be an anonymously-created online encyclopedia vulnerable to criticism (and the exposure of contributors as claiming expertise they lack, as the New Yorker experienced), but a not inconsiderable number of librarians are willing to take it seriously—and so are their constituents. That was the message from a lively session on Wikipedia at the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) conference in Baltimore last weekend. Session organizers Dan Ream, head, education & outreach services, Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries, and Lucretia McCulley, head of outreach and instruction services, University of Richmond Library, began by asking the crowd if they had used Wikipedia in the past week. More than 50 percent said yes. About one-third said they'd recommend it to library users, and about the same number said they preferred Wikipedia to a traditional encyclopedia. About one-quarter of the crowd thought librarians should have an active role in editing Wikipedia. Still, at least half the attendees indicated they had told students not to use it. (Later, one librarian commented that credibility wasn't the reason his colleagues don't recommend Wikipedia; rather, students are insulted because they automatically check that source and want librarians to go beyond that.)
That set the stage for some fascinating excerpts from video interviews with faculty members, staff members, and students at the presenters' two universities. A large number of those interviewed said they used Wikipedia, with various degrees of skepticism, with acceptance greater among those in the younger cohort. Some said they found it a good source of links; others said the self-policing function made for better results. "It's not the only place, but I do think it's a wonderful place to start," said one interviewee, an English professor. Several said they chose Wikipedia over traditional sources for convenience. Holding up the argument for tradition was Jim Rettig, university librarian at the University of Richmond, who said a little stiffly, "It's helpful for some limited things, but I much prefer to use other resources… with a proven track record." Some academics thought that Wikipedia offered them and their students opportunities for critical thinking; a younger librarian, hearkening back to Simon Winchester's book on the making of the Oxford English Dictionary, The Professor and the Madman, pointed out that inspired amateurs have a rich history contributing to reference works.
If you can't beat Wikipedia, join it. Jill McKinstry, of the University of Washington, commented that her colleagues have begun to populate Wikipedia entries with links to the university library's previously underused collections of digitized photographs. "Needless to say, our usage skyrocketed," she commented. A search on Wikipedia shows that 235 entries include images from the University of Washington.
