Before long, the phrase “but it’s in Wikipedia” crept into the student vernacular as a declaration of legitimacy.Įven the most strident critics eventually came around. Having a Wikipedia page became a status symbol for many. Wikipedia results started popping up as answers on the first page of Google searches. It didn’t take long for the panic to subside.
Writing for MIT Technology Review in 2005, Simson Garfinkel claimed Wikipedia shook the foundation of the “meaning of truth.” An oft-cited study by Nature in the same year, however, found that Wikipedia was not significantly less accurate than Encyclopædia Britannica, averaging four errors per entry versus three for Britannica-a gold standard recognized for its authority and reliability. Others let Stephen Colbert do the vandalizing, showing students a satirical Colbert Report segment that included him altering an article on air: “Who is Britannica to tell me that George Washington had slaves? If I want to say he didn’t, that’s my right.” Some instructors vandalized articles to demonstrate how easily falsehoods could be introduced. Librarians warned students to turn to vetted, authoritative sources on library shelves rather than the popular website.
Many faculty members banned its use outright. Remember when professors and librarians expressed a sense of panic about Wikipedia after its 2001 debut? A flurry of soul-searching discussions and debates spread on campuses everywhere about the meaning of accuracy and authority in the digital age.
0 kommentar(er)
