A quick rant about the state of Wikipedia (Jan 2007)...
DRAFT
What's good about Wikipedia
edit- Often the most complete and up-to-date encyclopedia
What's wrong with Wikipedia
edit- Articles are becoming more-and-more formal and less-and-less useful.
- Original principles seem to have changed (without admitting it)
global communication and shared knowledge Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages WP:AGF Wikipedia:Editing_policy [[1]]
The following post (and the actions to which it refers) shows how Wikipedia has strayed from the "Be bold" and the "AGF" principles...
Ten Cent Beer Night
editQuit taking down my additions to Ten Cent Beer Night. They are not vandalism, and neither is anything I contribute to wikipedia. People are DELIBERATELY accusing me ERRONEOUSLY of vandalism.This is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE!!Corey Bryant 19:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia's original (super-cool) principles (as I understood them)
edit- Any good-faith, neutral POV, notable, non-fiction, open-licensed, encyclopedia-like content was permissible.
- The magic of Wikipedia was that all content would be "edited mercilessly" in perpetuity.
- The multitude of editors would, over time, craft Wikipedia content closer and closer to perfection.
- Editors were strongly encouraged to "be bold"
Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles elucidated here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles, because the joy of editing is that although it should be aimed for, perfection is not required. And do not worry about messing up.
Conclusion
editNow that Wikipedia has "made the big-time" (e.g. usually a top-ranked Google result), it has begun to change its principles. Unless things change, Wikipedia may lose its status as the coolest thing since Google and just end up being the most comprehensive encyclopedia that happens to be free (excluding the encyclopedias that duplicate Wikipedia's content). Once that happens, the interest of editors, and readers, may wane.
Maybe the underlying question is this: Is Wikipedia to be a primary learning tool or merely a reference?
I guess this says it all...
Tertiary sources are publications, such as encyclopedias, that sum up other secondary sources, and sometimes primary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source.
Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. [3]
Actually, Wikipedia is not to be a reference -- it can never be trusted when accuracy is important. What Wikipedia is striving to become is a starting point. A collection of information taken from existing sources and restated in order to avoid plagiarism. It wont be optimal as a source of learning because most pedagogy and analysis will be flagged as "original research". Furthermore, in its attempt to maximize formality, it won't be particularly useful as a starting point since many of its references will be obscure (non-free) books and journals (which are, by the way, difficult to verify if you don't have access to them).
The primary use, therefore, of Wikipedia will be information retrieval for informal purposes and, secondarily, as a starting point for learning about a topic (based primarily on the hope that some of the "See also" content will be useful).