Wikipedia: “It’s like Balderdash, but for *real*”
Jessamyn mentioned that she might stick around in the Boston area to see the founder of Wikipedia speak at Harvard, and I mentioned to my SO* that I wished I could go (I’m working that night).
“I wouldn’t think you’d be interested in going to see the Wikipedia guy speak,” he replied.
My SO’s confusion about my interest in the talk is well warranted. We’ve had several conversations about Wikipedia’s virtues and shortcomings, and my overall opinion is that Wikipedia is good for select things, not all things, and should not be considered a die-hard authoritative source. I don’t consider myself a bad person for wanting to know where the content in the articles came from, so it makes my brain itch in a most uncomfortable fashion when I read so many articles with so much uncited information-as-fact (which was my feeling even before I was a librarian). Throw in the NYT-Wikipedia weirdness that happened a few weeks ago, and my brain develops *hives*.
At the same time, I do use Wikipedia. I can see Wikipedia as worth a quick look as a jumping off point for research, and an excellent resource on all things geek. I’m also totally hip to the value of the shared information conciousness. I mean, I became a librarian, didn’t I? And, well, while “librarian” doesn’t equal “all about information mindshare” to the general public sometimes, I think it’s an evolutionary aspect of our profession. So while Wikipedia has its issues, it’s something that librarians should be aware of, use, and keep an eye on. Heck, librarians should get their hands dirty writing *articles* and making *edits* on Wikipedia, adding citations (even if it’s just a note that says, “I was there when it happened” or “I’ve seen it” or something like that) where possible to set a good example.
But that’s just my opinion.
Anyway, in once again discussing the Wikipedia pros and cons, I mentioned to my SO the NYT weirdness, and that there’s a contingent of Wikipedia supporters who believe that the reason why librarians have a problem with Wikipedia is because it undermines the academic privileged regime over general knowledge, or so it might be worded. And thus the subject line of my post was uttered by my SO.
He’s right on a certain level. Equal parts of fun and horror on Wikipedia come from the fact that a good amount of the knowledge comes from the mindshare-at-large. Some people just *know* stuff, there is no formal citation, so to speak. And that’s very cool, really. However, when you get into issues of what one user “knows” versus what another user “knows”, especially if there’s a difference of opinion, it becomes knowledge by consensus, where the consensus is discussed by one person then the other editing each others’ edits, until you have Balderdash. Eventually. Hopefully.
So yes, I wish I could hear the man speak, and possibly chat with him myself. If you’re in the Boston area, you should really consider attending his talk. His creation has grown to create both a positive and negative buzz among the online world, from geeks to librarians, which means he did something write, and makes seeing him speak worthwhile whether you like Wikipedia or not. Besides, he could change your mind, or at least give you something to think about.
* A few of my colleagues and friends have recently mentioned that they think it’s really funny, and possibly weird, that I reference my guy as my “SO” rather than by his name. Just to clear this up, he asks me to do that, and I respect his request. 
Tags: reference, technology
