Phil Bradley's Blog

 
Chat to me live if the image is green you can chat
with me if i'm online

Blogroll


Useful sites

Librarianship sites
Ariadne
Freepint
Infomistress
Internet Resource Newsletter
Internet Scout
Librarian Avengers
Librarystuff
Peter Scott's library blog
Shifted Librarian


Search engines
Alltheweb
ez2Find
Google
Ixquick
Kartoo
Zapmeta


Search engine optimisation
Pandia
Rankwrite
Researchbuzz
Searchengineblog
Searchengineshowdown


Other useful sites
My personal weblog
Amazon
BBC
Capital Radio
Ebay
London Underground Map

Back to my home page

 

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

RSS feed page

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

 
Nicholas Carr's Blog includes a fascinating piece on Web 2.0 and the main focus of much of the current flurry of comments relates to his description of the Wikipedia as factually unreliable with often appalling writing. He goes on to really take it to pieces with a couple of examples. A flavour of what he says: "this is garbage, an incoherent hodge-podge of dubious factoids", "the slipshod quality of much of Wikipedia". It's a very thought provoking piece, and I agree with much of what he says. However, it's worth reading the contrary opinion, as posted on Wikipedia itself.

I use Wikipedia a little bit, if I want to get an overview of a subject, or to generally read up on something that I don't know much about. However, while I might (if I'm doing a poor citation) say 'The Encyclopaedia Britannica says that...' I'd never dream of doing that with Wikipedia. I'd be more likely to say 'Some unidentified source that may or may not know what they're talking about at Wikipedia says that...'. I simply don't trust for anything important - sorry, but there it is.

Comments: Post a Comment