A tale of information ethics and encyclopædias; or, is Wikipedia just another internet scam?
| Date | 26 June 2007 |
| Pages | 273-276 |
| Published date | 26 June 2007 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520710773050 |
| Author | G.E. Gorman |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Library & information science |
EDITORIAL
A tale of information ethics and
encyclopædias; or, is Wikipedia
just another internet scam?
G.E. Gorman
School of Information Management, Victoria University of Wellington,
Wellington, New Zealand
Abstract
Purpose – This paper seeks to look at the question of accuracy of content regarding Wikipedia and
other internet encyclopædias.
Design/methodology/approach – By looking at other sources, the paper considers whether the
information contained within Wikipedia can be relied on to be accurate.
Findings –Wikipedia poses as an encyclopædia when by no stretch of the definition can it be termed
such; therefore, it should be subject to regulation.
Originality/value – The paper highlights the issue that, without regulation,content cannot be relied
on to be accurate.
Keywords Encyclopaedias,Internet, Accuracy, Regulation
Paper type General review
Most of us have been raised with encyclopædias close at hand – on the home
bookshelf, in a nearby library, on CD-ROM, online. Indeed, as a youngster I spent many
a winter’s day curled up with one or more volumes of the family’s Britannica, learning
about an amazing array of subjects, both mundane and esoteric. And it was all
accepted as “truth”.
As I became older, I learned how to evaluate books, including encyclopædias, and
saw that Britannica, along with others of that ilk, drew on the expertise of some of the
best-known experts in their respective disciplines. This, for me, helped to confirm the
accuracy of content, which I think is the hallmark of any respected encyclopædia or
dictionary
This seems to be implied in Britannica’s own discussion of “encyclopædia” (and I
have now graduated to the Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition): “...only
the encyclopædia attempts to provide coverage over the whole range of knowledge,
and only the encyclopædia attempts to offer a comprehensive summary of what is
known of each topic considered.”
And my long-time be
ˆte noire,Wikipedia, makes this quite clear: “... traditional
encyclopedias are written by a number of employed text writers, usually people with
an academic degree ....” But Wikipedia goes on to state that “the interactive nature of
the Internet allowed for the creation of collaborative projects such as Nupedia,
Everything2,Open Site, and Wikipedia,some of which allowed anyone to add or improve
content”. The emphasis here is mine, for it shows up the basic distinction between an
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1468-4527.htm
Information
ethics and
encyclopaedias
273
Online Information Review
Vol. 31 No. 3, 2007
pp. 273-276
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1468-4527
DOI 10.1108/14684520710773050
To continue reading
Request your trial