Wikipedia

I've chosen to examine wikis and I've learnt some interesting things from 20 mins of browsing: for example, it seems I've visited Top Gear presenter Richard Hammond's home in Gloucestershire for my work purposes (looking at roof timbers and working out how old they are - answer: late medieval) and had a long chat with his wife without even realising who her husband was!

As for the merits of wikipedia: on the positive side, it's great that there is such a vast resource available free to everyone, and everyone can have their say. It means that there is likely to be an article on pretty much anything you type in, and the fact that so many people can contribute means that, as a project, it can achieve an awful lot in a short space of time: many hands make light work!

On the negative side, I'm a historian and it's my job to make judgements about the relative reliablity and accuracy of available sources. Because nothing on wikipedia is guaranteed to be accurate, it can never be fully trusted or relied upon and I could never cite it in a footnote to my histories. For the same reason, I wish that undergarduates would stop relying on it so much in their essays!! I've lost count of the number of assignments I've seen where the bibliography consists of nothing but wikipedia citations. Let's face it, wikipedia is NOT a trustworthy source and students in particular shouldn't learn to rely on it. How I see wikipedia is a GATEWAY to learning: i.e. it flags up particular areas of knowledge that you should then follow up with your own research and verification process.

The anonimity issue is also a bit of a tricky point. On the one hand, it gives you the confidence and freedom to contribute and make changes without fear of being hunted down, but does give a minority the licence to misinform with impunity and perhaps even cause mailcious vandalism.

Anyway, that's enough from me for now!

Simon.