Dumpling in a Hanky

There's been all sorts of publicity about Wikipedia since it first appeared, and opinion among the librarians I know has swung from "that's potentially useful" to "that's a bit dodgy, I don't think I can trust it", and finally on to "that's a good start for finding information on all sorts of stuff, but I need to be aware of its shortcomings". So, I know Wikipedia's handy, and I know I have to be wary of certain stuff (it's notorious for being maliciously edited on pages covering contentious topics, and amusingly Wikipedia has a page on malicious edits/vandalism on Wikipedia ), but I don't know how to look into the workings of it and assess it properly. I know the editors are volunteers, but how do they become volunteers, and how exactly do they edit pages? And what are the systems in place to stop or flag up unreliable edits? If I'm going to explain to my service users why they should or shouldn't rely on a Wikipe...

Tara Brabazon's hitting the headlines again, with an interview in The Guardian. She thinks that librarians will like her take on things, as we all want more books, and must feel as she does, that using Google, Wikipedia, and even blogs is 'bad' research. Well, I disagree. I like using Google - it gives me a good starting point. Wikipedia quickly gives me information on topics that I don't know about. Blogs give a personal view of issues, and often uncover a bias or truth not widely publicised. Yes, books are wonderful, but to get to the information in them, I need physical access to them...which isn't always possible. Online tools allow me to start my research from resources I can access, then if needed, I can move on to physical resources. I can't easily tell if a book even discusses a certain topic without having it and its index in my hand, but I can do a keyword search on a pdf, or webpage, and rapidly check its usefulness. I'm also a big enough girl t...