Providing quest in Internet by any search engine, we get the list of sources, headed by Wikipedia site. Is it so reliable to take as the base of a scientific project? Wikipedia administrator cannot ignore this credibility relating question and launch the article about Wikipedia criticism to demonstarte its concerns in accuracy – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticisms. You can find there a broad range of opinions by expersts in different fields to comment on Wikipedia credibility. It discloses one of the biggest issue reguarding Wikipedia site – the truthfullness of intepretation. Actually, this is, first of all, question of professional qualification of the audience involved in building the site. Experts challenge factual accuracy of the site, but they doubt with double stress the intepretative initiative made by net experts- http://many.corante.com/archives/2004/08/29/wikipedia_reputation_and_the_wemedia_project.php. Another question is about editing system of the site itself – it is good enough to filter out factual mistakes at first, and then to correct vision on the historical events? To start arguing on this issue, it needs mentioning on national, social, ideological and cultural identity of people, volunteering to run collaborative sites. Most of them are Western countries’ residents. Acordingly, big problems raise – http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm (the comparative research of both Britannica and Wikipedia in 2005). Quoting the spokesman from Britannica encyclopedia as saying: “Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia. But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively.” Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales welcomed the study. “We’re hoping it will focus people’s attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good,” he said. It is worth of saying that Briatnnica source is advanced with double-check system, which associated with professors from the leading univercities’ libraries. Wikipedia runs different service system. To continue with problem of false intepretation, mainly, it touches upon Cold war issues, Soviet period and Post-soviet states. Westernalized mentality lays in surface of this intepretation. To speak personally, Wikipedia source needs RE-CHECKING. For me sa a journalist verification of the credibility of a source palys a crucial role. However, it can be a good start to pick up some facts and continue research on them – http://connect.educause.edu/blog/hes8/wikipediareliability/1792?time=1182746295.
To be continued…
