- Image via Wikipedia
“Wired Editor Apologizes for Copying From Wikipedia in New Book”
Chris Anderson has admitted to using material from Wikipedia without attributing his source. He has responded well and is in the process of making it right.
I guess it came from some confusion about how he was going to include the attribution but then while “rushing” to complete the book, the attribution was mistakenly omitted.
Stuff happens. Give him some slack if he fixes it. I was interested in the article, not because I wanted to add another finger pointing at the poor guy, but because an issue is brought up about Wikipedia as a reputable source of information. One of the reasons for the confusion was that Chris’s publisher wanted him to not only state the source but the date he viewed the source. The reason was the perceived “changing nature of Wikipedia.”
I’ve heard people give Wikipedia some flack stating that it could contain some erroneous facts and, as stated in the article about Chris Anderson, it has the possibility to change. I have a few points and/or questions on the subject:
- Does the possibility it may contain errors make it a less reputable source than other encyclopedias? As far as I understand it, encyclopedias contain what we refer to as “common knowledge” on a subject. This already has the possibility of containing errors. Just because a fact is believed commonly does not necessarily make it true.
- Does the fact that it is subject to change make it less or more reliable? Done correctly, I see this as a pro. Have you ever read one of those encyclopedias from 15 years ago? Some of the information is almost comical because it’s so outdated. A living and breathing source of information such as Wikipedia is very tempting. Obviously there may be errors, but one should always search many sources diligently for the truth rather than just mining one.
I do understand the publisher’s contention. If the attribution contains the date, the quote would hold a better chance of being understood if information does end up changing.
Read a prior article I wrote about finding answers on the Internet
What about you? Do you use Wikipedia for research? What other sources do you use to collaborate facts?
I guess it came from some confusion about how he was going to include the attribution but then while “rushing” to complete the book, the attribution was mistakenly omitted.
Stuff happens. Give him some slack if he fixes it. I was interested in the article, not because I wanted to add another finger pointing at the poor guy, but because an issue is brought up about Wikipedia as a reputable source of information. One of the reasons for the confusion was that Chris’s publisher wanted him to not only state the source but the date he viewed the source. The reason was the perceived “changing nature of Wikipedia.”
I’ve heard people give Wikipedia some flack stating that it could contain some erroneous facts and, as stated in the article about Chris Anderson, it has the possibility to change. I have a few points and/or questions on the subject:
1. Does the possibility it may contain errors make it a less reputable source than other encyclopedias? As far as I understand it, encyclopedias contain what we refer to as “common knowledge” on a subject. This already has the possibility of containing errors. Just because a fact is believed commonly does not necessarily make it true.
2. Does the fact that it is subject to change make it less or more reliable? Done correctly, I see this as a pro. Have you ever read one of those encyclopedias from 15 years ago? Some of the information is almost comical because it’s so outdated. A living and breathing source of information such as Wikipedia is very tempting. Obviously there may be errors, but one should always search many sources diligently for the truth rather than just mining one.
I do understand the publisher’s contention. If the attribution contains the date, the quote would hold a better chance of being understood if information does end up changing.
Read a prior article I wrote about finding answers on the Internet [link: http://timmyjohnboy.com/2009/01/03/how-i-get-almost-any-question-i-have-answered-using-the-internet/]
What about you? Do you use Wikipedia for research? What other sources do you use to collaborate facts?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=98004a71-267b-4757-8f41-aa199480e9bb)
email2friend
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=5e80835e-c5cd-4d27-a6ee-bb5f417639b1)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=90dee9a6-b141-45ea-a6df-51ce8fb32ab4)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=2ee32bdd-2ec1-422d-a872-3680a368e816)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=85f5647e-0668-4ef6-8820-5cffe4ca4420)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=8565a547-7a16-4df5-abce-d9191875f363)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=00368ed1-c407-4992-b5b0-9cc7e08b44f5)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=465602a2-2430-482f-869e-c55572ea502c)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=04a82d46-4c08-43f9-8ada-53e5d07aee1f)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=e165057a-e012-466d-a22c-2894588fb87e)
Recent Comments