Unfortunately, just as I'm coming around to treating Wikipedia with ample skeptism, I read something like this. Initially, the article is pretty even-handed.
But then, the Wikipedia-bashing: "Wikipedia remains a lumpy work in progress. The entries can read as though they had been written by a seventh grader: clarity and concision are lacking; the facts may be sturdy, but the connective tissue is either anemic or absent; and citation is hit or miss." I can't help it; I just have an emotional response to this kind of thing. It's probably related to the analogy that Jimmy Wales uses about Wikipedia being rock and roll, and Britannica being easy listening. It's certainly a teen-age angst voice that wells up in me and wants to yell, "You just don't understand, man--it's about the people. It's, like, cool, and fast, and easy to use. You just use the good stuff in Wikipedia--don't use the stupid stuff. Phfft, anybody knows that." I know, it's a very intelligent retort.
I think you just have to know your tool. If you're trying to start a new, healthful, organic, all-goodness diet, don't go to McDonald's. But, if you're on the turnpike early in the morning, and you'd like some tasty hash browns, it's not the end of the world. Just don't tell yourself that they're the nutritional equivalent of whole-grain cereal and grapefruit.
Brace yourself. Here it comes: the "good enough" argument. It *is* good enough for some things. For example, reading the Schiff article, Felix Unger came up in connection with OCD. It seemed to be part of a witty remark, but I couldn't think of who that might be. So, I jump on over to Wikipedia, do a quick search for Felix Unger, and viola, my memory is jogged back to watching "Odd Couple" reruns as a child. I get the reference, and I'm back to reading the New Yorker article in less than thirty seconds.
So, reading that Schiff article had the exact opposite of the intended effect. I may never get a job as a librarian after posting this, but...well, if loving Wikipedia is wrong, I don't want to be right. *sigh*
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact
No comments:
Post a Comment