A tale of information ethics and encyclopædias; or, is <i>Wikipedia</i> just another internet scam?

Gorman, G.E.

doi:10.1108/14684520710773050

Cited by 30 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Criticism of Wikipedia has also been raised in the academic world. Gary Gorman, for example, argues that Wikipedia is an “unethical resource unworthy of our respect” (Gorman, 2007, p. 274). And the entire history department of Vermont's Middlebury College has officially banned the use of Wikipedia in student papers, noting on its syllabi that “whereas Wikipedia is extraordinarily convenient and, for some general purposes, extremely useful, it nonetheless suffers inevitably from inaccuracies deriving in large measure from its unique manner of compilation” (Read, 2007).…”

Section: Review Of the Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Wikipedia's credibility: References and citations in a sample of history articles

Luyt

Tan

2010

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluates how well the authors of Wikipedia history articles adhere to the site's policy of assuring verifiability through citations. It does so by examining the references and citations of a subset of country histories. The findings paint a dismal picture. Not only are many claims not verified through citations, those that are suffer from the choice of references used. Many of these are from only a few US government Websites or news media and few are to academic journal material. Given these results, one response would be to declare Wikipedia unsuitable for serious reference work. But another option emerges when we jettison technological determinism and look at Wikipedia as a product of a wider social context. Key to this context is a world in which information is bottled up as commodities requiring payment for access. Equally important is the problematic assumption that texts are undifferentiated bearers of knowledge. Those involved in instructional programs can draw attention to the social nature of texts to counter these assumptions and by so doing create an awareness for a new generation of Wikipedians and Wikipedia users of the need to evaluate texts (and hence citations) in light of the social context of their production and use.

show abstract

Section: Review Of the Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Wikipedia's credibility: References and citations in a sample of history articles

Luyt

Tan

2010

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a result, it has been suggested that “it's the blind leading the blind—infinite monkeys providing infinite information for infinite readers, perpetuating the cycle of misinformation and ignorance” (Keen, 2007, p. 4). Wikipedia also has been dismissed as unreliable by members of the library and information science community (e.g., Cronin, 2005; Gorman, 2007). The ultimate worry here is that people are likely to acquire false beliefs rather than knowledge as a result of consulting such a seemingly unreliable information source.…”

Section: An Epistemic Evaluation Of Wikipediamentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward an epistemology ofWikipedia

Fallis

2008

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

171

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wikipedia (the "free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit") is having a huge impact on how a great many people gather information about the world. So, it is important for epistemologists and information scientists to ask whether people are likely to acquire knowledge as a result of having access to this information source. In other words, is Wikipedia having good epistemic consequences? After surveying the various concerns that have been raised about the reliability of Wikipedia, this article argues that the epistemic consequences of people using Wikipedia as a source of information are likely to be quite good. According to several empirical studies, the reliability of Wikipedia compares favorably to the reliability of traditional encyclopedias. Furthermore, the reliability of Wikipedia compares even more favorably to the reliability of those information sources that people would be likely to use if Wikipedia did not exist (viz., Web sites that are as freely and easily accessible as Wikipedia). In addition, Wikipedia has a number of other epistemic virtues (e.g., power, speed, and fecundity) that arguably outweigh any deficiency in terms of reliability. Even so, epistemologists and information scientists should certainly be trying to identify changes (or alternatives) to Wikipedia that will bring about even better epistemic consequences. This article suggests that to improve Wikipedia, we need to clarify what our epistemic values are and to better understand why Wikipedia works as well as it does.Somebody who reads Wikipedia is "rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom," says Mr. McHenry, Britannica's former editor. "It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him." One wonders whether people like Mr. McHenry would prefer there to be no public lavatories at all.

show abstract

“…Moreover, at least a third of American Internet users consult Wikipedia and a majority of those with a college degree (Rainie & Tancer, ). Nevertheless, there have been concerns about the accuracy and completeness of Wikipedia articles (Chesney, ; Denning, Horning, Parnas, & Weinstein, ; Gorman, ; cf. Giles, ) because anonymous authors may add incorrect information (Mehegan, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are wikipedia citations important evidence of the impact of scholarly articles and books?

Kousha

Thelwall

2016

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individual academics and research evaluators often need to assess the value of published research. Although citation counts are a recognized indicator of scholarly impact, alternative data is needed to provide evidence of other types of impact, including within education and wider society. Wikipedia is a logical choice for both of these because the role of a general encyclopaedia is to be an understandable repository of facts about a diverse array of topics and hence it may cite research to support its claims. To test whether Wikipedia could provide new evidence about the impact of scholarly research, this article counted citations to 302,328 articles and 18,735 monographs in English indexed by Scopus in the period 2005 to 2012. The results show that citations from Wikipedia to articles are too rare for most research evaluation purposes, with only 5% of articles being cited in all fields. In contrast, a third of monographs have at least one citation from Wikipedia, with the most in the arts and humanities. Hence, Wikipedia citations can provide extra impact evidence for academic monographs. Nevertheless, the results may be relatively easily manipulated and so Wikipedia is not recommended for evaluations affecting stakeholder interests.

show abstract

A tale of information ethics and encyclopædias; or, is Wikipedia just another internet scam?

Cited by 30 publications

References 1 publication

Improving Wikipedia's credibility: References and citations in a sample of history articles

Improving Wikipedia's credibility: References and citations in a sample of history articles

Toward an epistemology ofWikipedia

Are wikipedia citations important evidence of the impact of scholarly articles and books?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About