<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>

<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
<title type="text">Joseph Reagle</title>
<subtitle type="html"><![CDATA[
Open Communities, Media, Source, and Standards
]]></subtitle>
<id>http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikipedia/usage-and-citation</id>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://reagle.org/joseph/blog" />
<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikipedia/usage-and-citation?flav=atom" />


<author>
<name>Joseph Reagle</name>
<uri>http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikipedia/usage-and-citation</uri>
<email></email>
</author>
<rights>Copyright 2003-2010 Joseph Reagle</rights>
<generator uri="http://pyblosxom.sourceforge.net/" version="1.4.3 01/10/2008">
PyBlosxom http://pyblosxom.sourceforge.net/ 1.4.3 01/10/2008
</generator>

<updated>2005-03-01T16:27:42Z</updated>
<!-- icon?  logo?  -->

<entry>
<title type="html">Usage and citation</title>
<category term="" />
<id>http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/2005/03/01/usage-and-citation</id>
<updated>2005-03-01T16:27:42Z</updated>
<published>2005-03-01T16:27:42Z</published>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikipedia/usage-and-citation.html" />
<content type="html">

&lt;p&gt;There are two oddities associated with concerns about the Wikipedia in the
school setting, when teachers do not permit the students to use Wikipedia &lt;a
href=&quot;http://www.corante.com/many/archives/2005/03/06/situating_wikipedia.php&quot;&gt;as
a source&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The first difficulty is that the Wikipedia is often compared to the
Encyclopedia Britannica, a resource I was not allowed to cite in highschool,
though it is now presented as the gold standard of authority relative to the
messiness of the Wikipedia. The second is that students will use the
Wikipedia -- just as I used the Encyclopedia Britannica in my youth and
continue to use reference works today. (In fact, I think highly of professors
who can provide a good reference work or textbook for their domain, and
poorly of those who can&apos;t or refuse to because they feel their topic cannot
be &quot;reduced.&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Even in high school, when confronted with a rule prohibiting the citation
of a reference work I felt as if I was being encouraged towards plagiarism,
or at least unfairness. If a reference work points me to a more authoritative
source, should I at least not acknowledge this bit of help? Particularly, if
I&apos;m more likely to be influenced by the summary provided by the reference?
Additionally why would any book among the thousands published a year be any
more authoritative than a general reference work on the sole basis of its
form? I could compile a multipage bibliography of books denying the
Holocaust, but find few -- if any -- general-purpose reference works that did
the same. The generality of the reference work insulates it from partisan
pressures because it must appeal to a wide audience over many topics. It is
unlikely that neo-Nazis would publish a useful general reference work for the
sole purpose of shifting articles on Jews towards their perspective. However,
this is not to say that reference works have no bias. Only, that if we look
at the formal genre of a text only -- which is what this rule does -- any
given reference work is less likely to be &quot;eccentric&quot; than any book taken at
random.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Finally, when one considers in what direction the authority flows, books
are often demonstrated as authorities by being cited by the encyclopedia! Or,
at least, encyclopedias imparts as much authority to the books they cite, as
they obtain in citing them -- this transfer is mediated by the reputation of
the publisher, editor, and contributors.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</content>
</entry>
</feed>
