Wikipedia used in Authority Records

Posting to Bibliographic Wilderness concerning the use of Wikipedia in 670 fields

I think this says it all.

Wikipedia is not a reference source, even though it wants to be. Information literacy workshops tell people that if they are to use Wikipedia, they must use it wisely. It may lead you to good sources, but as a source itself, it is unreliable. Here’s one example: but there are lots more.




  1. MLB said:

    The authority record doesn't cite Wikipedia as an "authority." It cites Wikipedia as an instance of actual use for this particular form of the name. The record asserts that this particular form of the name has actually been used. It cites the use in Wikipedia as evidence that this use actually exists. It says nothing about the authority of Wikipedia as a reference tool. It claims

    April 1, 2010
  2. That's an interesting view, that the authority file is supposed to cite instances of actual use for a particular form of a name. I don't know if that's entirely correct. There are many "forms" of Pres. Obama's name being used by members of the Tea Party right now, and there were just as many "forms of name" people came up with for Pres. G.W. Bush. Anybody can

    April 1, 2010
  3. Anonymous said:

    Librarians should be less phobic about Wikipedia. Just wait until facebook becomes a research tool!

    April 1, 2010

Comments are closed.