Educators and librarians have long had an ambivalent relationship with Wikipedia. While admiring the attempt to crowdsource all human knowledge, the authority of that knowledge can often be in doubt. Many teachers will veto Wikipedia as a source, yet it doesn’t stop students (or even many adults) from using it for casual research. Considering how contentious Wikipedia has been since its inception, it’s not a surprise that it is still evolving and making news.
- The Internet Archive is making Wikipedia more reliable [WIRED] “Now, thanks to a new initiative by the Internet Archive, you can click the name of the book and see a two-page preview of the cited work, so long as the citation specifies a page number. You can also borrow a digital copy of the book, so long as no else has checked it out, for two weeks—much the same way you’d borrow a book from your local library. “
- China and Taiwan clash over Wikipedia edits [BBC News] “The edit war over Taiwan was only one of a number that had broken out across Wikipedia’s vast, multi-lingual expanse of entries. The Hong Kong protests page had seen 65 changes in the space of a day – largely over questions of language. Were they protesters? Or rioters? “
- North Face tried to scam Wikipedia to get its products to the top of Google search [The Verge] “The North Face, in a campaign with advertising agency Leo Burnett Tailor Made, hatched a scheme to get its products to the top of Google Images by replacing Wikipedia photos with its own product placement shots.”
- Only 17.7 percent of the biographical pages on Wikipedia are women. This group wants to change that [9news.com] “In the last year, Inclusipedia has created pages for notable local women in Boulder County. The research is tedious because only secondary sources are allowed, and women often received less coverage in the first place.”
From the Ohio Web Library:
- Some colleges cautiously embrace Wikipedia ( Zahneis, M. (2018, August 3). Some Colleges Cautiously Embrace Wikipedia. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. 1. )
- DO EXPERTS OR CROWD-BASED MODELS PRODUCE MORE BIAS? EVIDENCE FROM ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA AND WIKIPEDIA. ( Greenstein S, Feng Zhu. Do Experts or Crowd-Based Models Produce More Bias? Evidence from Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia. MIS Quarterly. 2018;42(3):945-959. doi:10.25300/MISQ/2018/14084. )
- One Tool in the Fight Against Wikipedia’s Notorious Gender Bias. ( Crawford A. One Tool in the Fight Against Wikipedia’s Notorious Gender Bias. Smithsonian. 2019;49(10):4. )
