Wiki as a credible source?

Now here's something to chew on...

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/278832_slug26.html

its a seemingly normal article about a slug. However what I find interesting is this part:

"It (the slug) also can transmit the tobacco mosaic virus, which is particularly infectious to tobacco, tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, and several ornamental flowers, according to customs officials and Wikipedia.org. "

I've read before how grad students are starting to reference Wiki, but this is the first time I've seen print journalists do so. For my relatives, Wikipedia is essentially a democratic knowledge base where any user can post a definition and leave it to others to decide if it should stay or what should be changed.

So is this a good thing or a bad thing? Is this lazy journalism?

Comments

[Jacob]

The difference is that even with the errors, the encyclopedia can be referenced, researched, and its author identified. Wikki is a great tool and we use it for work to get the skinny on a new tech we are researching, however you have to admit it has its limits. Its like the bizarre love child of "Best Week Ever!" and "PBS".

[John]

Don't be so square, Jayson.

Have you ever tried looking up something in wikipedia other than Paris Hilton? I think you'll be surprised by the amount of in-depth cultural, historical and scientific content available.

But the trendy, pop stuff is valuable as well. You'll never see an Encyclopeadia Brittanica article on the "Snakes on a Plane" meme.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakes_on_a_plane

John

[Jayson]

To rely on Wiki as your definitive source is idiotic, however it can be used as an affirmation of other resources. The best part of Wikipedia is the references links they give below. Too pop-culture oriented for my taste.

[John]

I love wikipedia. I'm often surprised at the amount of great information in the articles that a person or persons are willing to research, articulate and then maintain.

I've seen and heard journalists quote bloggers and messageboards, so it's not suprising. An audit by the Journal of Nature found that of 42 articles, the wikipedia contained 162 errors and the Encyclopaedia Britannica contained 123 errors on the same topics. Not too much of a difference. I thought it was more surprising the number of errors in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which just proves it's better to rely on a variety of sources.

Another experiment had people intentionally inserting false information into wikipedia articles, and found them corrected within minutes.

John

[Jacob]

The irony is, if you wikki "Lehmannia nyctelia", it returns no hits. The article doesn't mention the common name of the slug, either. How can you reference a wikki article that doesn't exist?

You know...people can be both smart AND lazy...

On a side note, I'm going to tell my mom about this slug thing. If she knew that she could make a living crawling into vegetable containers hunting slugs, she'd come out of retirement. She *hates* those things.

[Marlana]

I have to admit that Wiki may be a dubious source of reference information. In fact, my company specifically warns us *against* using it for research purposes. However, I am going to defend the reporter. I went to college with the guy and he's one of the smartest people I know. Maybe he knows more about voracious slugs than your average PI reporter ;)
~Marlana

[Cheri]

I'm almost ashamed to admit this, but I too have used Wikipedia as a source in a graduate school paper.

The value of Wiki is mostly that it combines information for a lot of other sources, and I've found (for business topics at least) that the quality of the information is quite high.

However what I often do is go to Wikipedia for an overview and then branch out to the referenced sources for my actually paper references.

I will not be using Wikipedia in my thesis.

Cheri