On Wikipedia, a commentary. You know, for fun. - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

BarbaraGordon · 11-02-2006, 06:12 PM

Okay, yes, librarians hate wikipedia. But by "librarians" I mean overaged technophobes with grey hair, frumpy sweaters, and bad shoes.

This is either because:

1. It is a steaming pile of unverified trash put together by 17 year olds in the middle of the night.
or
2. Because they fear it might put libraries out of business.

As for the younger librarian set (those of us without the frumpy sweaters), we realize that wikimedia has certain legitimate uses, as well as its weaknesses.

: )

jay santos · 11-02-2006, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lisa.Kinzer

Okay, yes, librarians hate wikipedia. But by "librarians" I mean overaged technophobes with grey hair, frumpy sweaters, and bad shoes.

This is either because:

1. It is a steaming pile of unverified trash put together by 17 year olds in the middle of the night.
or
2. Because they fear it might put libraries out of business.

As for the younger librarian set (those of us without the frumpy sweaters), we realize that wikimedia has certain legitimate uses, as well as its weaknesses.

: )

Boo! I love wikipedia. I could either spend 20 minutes searching the net for a summary of steaming pile of unverified trash about a subject or I can go straight to wikipedia and get it immediately. Seriously, though, when I read wikipedia subject for which I'm knowledgeable, I'm usually impressed with wikipedia's handling of it.

mpfunk · 11-02-2006, 06:47 PM

I became disappointed in wikipedia when it became apparent they were not going to allow the truth about Cosmo the Cougar to remain.

TyronneBiggums · 11-02-2006, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpfunk

I became disappointed in wikipedia when it became apparent they were not going to allow the truth about Cosmo the Cougar to remain.

I became disappointed when the truth about you no longer was able to remain, because they took down your flaming homosexual pictures.

TheSizzle36 · 11-02-2006, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TyronneBiggums

I became disappointed when the truth about you no longer was able to remain, because they took down your flaming homosexual pictures.

Wow, you are like Grapevine with a mean streak....

SeattleUte · 11-02-2006, 08:26 PM

I love Wikipedia. Those kinds of arguments you used to get into in college that lasted into the night and for which there was no immediate resolution, but a right answer was someplace, no longer need be left unfinished. For example, was George C. Marshal Truman's SEcretary of Defense or something else? Dean Acheson was what? What provoked the Chinese invation of North Korea? Also, if, for example, you need a quick brush up on the meaning and origin of "gordian knot" or "Rosetta Stone" to ensure a metaphore in a speech you're preparing is precise, there's no better or more convenient place to look. If you hear about an obscure work of literature and want a quick summary of its origin and critical reactions, again, Wikipedia is the place to look first. No, it's no substitute for real research if you need to dig deep. But for quick reference on basic topics, there's no better source.

Surfah · 11-02-2006, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I love Wikipedia. Those kinds of arguments you used to get into in college that lasted into the night and for which there was no immediate resolution, but a right answer was someplace, no longer need be left unfinished. For example, was George C. Marshal Truman's SEcretary of Defense or something else? Dean Acheson was what? What provoked the Chinese invation of North Korea? Also, if, for example, you need a quick brush up on the meaning and origin of "gordian knot" or "Rosetta Stone" to ensure a metaphore in a speech you're preparing is precise, there's no better or more convenient place to look. If you hear about an obscure work of literature and want a quick summary of its origin and critical reactions, again, Wikipedia is the place to look first. No, it's no substitute for real research if you need to dig deep. But for quick reference on basic topics, there's no better source.

I agree. It's a great launchpad for further independent research.

creekster · 11-02-2006, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

in college that lasted into the night . . . For example . . . Dean Acheson was what?

I can honestly say that not once during college did I stay up late at night wondering or disucssing what Dean Acheson was or was not. Perhaps this is my problem?

MikeWaters · 11-02-2006, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creekster

I can honestly say that not once during college did I stay up late at night wondering or disucssing what Dean Acheson was or was not. Perhaps this is my problem?

I remember being warned at BYU that discussion about Dean Acheson would lead me away from the gospel. At the time I thought that was silly.

BarbaraGordon · 11-02-2006, 09:25 PM

>>>No, it's no substitute for real research if you need to dig deep. But for quick reference on basic topics, there's no better source.

That's right, SeattleUte...

The REAL problem that librarians have with wikipedia is not in its inception, its construction, or its execution.

The problem is with its use. Which, of course, is controlled by the users.

Unfortunately, there are a TON of college kids out there who really think that use of wikipedia constitutes academic research. And it drives professors and librarians bananas...

Launchpad for independent research? Yes.
More and more, the contributors are including references for the entries, and I think this is where the true value of wikipedia is...the built-in web-liographies at the end of each page.

11-02-2006, 06:12 PM	#1
BarbaraGordon Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Gotham City Posts: 7,157	On Wikipedia, a commentary. You know, for fun. Okay, yes, librarians hate wikipedia. But by "librarians" I mean overaged technophobes with grey hair, frumpy sweaters, and bad shoes. This is either because: 1. It is a steaming pile of unverified trash put together by 17 year olds in the middle of the night. or 2. Because they fear it might put libraries out of business. As for the younger librarian set (those of us without the frumpy sweaters), we realize that wikimedia has certain legitimate uses, as well as its weaknesses. : )

11-02-2006, 08:26 PM	#6
SeattleUte fairlds.org Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 10,665	I love Wikipedia. Those kinds of arguments you used to get into in college that lasted into the night and for which there was no immediate resolution, but a right answer was someplace, no longer need be left unfinished. For example, was George C. Marshal Truman's SEcretary of Defense or something else? Dean Acheson was what? What provoked the Chinese invation of North Korea? Also, if, for example, you need a quick brush up on the meaning and origin of "gordian knot" or "Rosetta Stone" to ensure a metaphore in a speech you're preparing is precise, there's no better or more convenient place to look. If you hear about an obscure work of literature and want a quick summary of its origin and critical reactions, again, Wikipedia is the place to look first. No, it's no substitute for real research if you need to dig deep. But for quick reference on basic topics, there's no better source. __________________ Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster Last edited by SeattleUte; 11-02-2006 at 08:34 PM.

11-02-2006, 09:25 PM	#10
BarbaraGordon Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Gotham City Posts: 7,157	We have a winner!! >>>No, it's no substitute for real research if you need to dig deep. But for quick reference on basic topics, there's no better source. That's right, SeattleUte... The REAL problem that librarians have with wikipedia is not in its inception, its construction, or its execution. The problem is with its use. Which, of course, is controlled by the users. Unfortunately, there are a TON of college kids out there who really think that use of wikipedia constitutes academic research. And it drives professors and librarians bananas... Launchpad for independent research? Yes. More and more, the contributors are including references for the entries, and I think this is where the true value of wikipedia is...the built-in web-liographies at the end of each page.

11-02-2006, 06:47 PM	#3
mpfunk Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 2,619	I became disappointed in wikipedia when it became apparent they were not going to allow the truth about Cosmo the Cougar to remain.