Wikipedia users: A New Report from the Pew Internet and American Life Project
8 pages; PDF.

More than a third of American adult internet users (36%) consult the Citizen-generated online encyclopedia Wikipedia, according to a new nationwide survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project. And on a typical day in the winter of 2007, 8% of online Americans consulted Wikipedia.

A Few Quick Reactions to the Report.

These are not solutions or things that MUST be done. Just ideas and concepts to consider.

+ Do people only utilize Wikipedia because they don’t know that other resources exist be it Encarta (as you know, most of it is available free if you know how to find it***) or that many libraries offer free remote access (from any web computer) to many general purpose and specialized encyclopedias? As the study points out, convenience is an important factor. True. But do people realize that with only a small amount of extra effort (and often, just a small amount of effort one time) they can access these materials via the web from anywhere in the world? In other words, how can people even consider using other tools if they don’t know then exist in the first place and where to find them in the second place?

We often here from some Wikipedia users that they use it as a starting point but would always verify with other tools. Sounds like a decent plan. However, do other users (at all user levels) know that other tools are easily available? In fact, Wikipedia Co-Founder, Jimmy Wales, has said that entries need to be taken with “a grain of salt.” He’s right and this is also the case with many research tools (aka critical info skills). This is also why having a variety of options is important. However, given Wikipedia’s popularity, does a typical user know where to find (in a timely manner) other grains of salt? Finally, it’s also important to know about other tools since Wikipedia is stronger in some areas versus others.

+ Do some users realize that new projects, like Citizendium exist and, at least on the surface, have different controls who can and cannot enter/edit material. Btw, is Citizendium a good idea in the first place? See interview 1 ||| 2 ||| 3 with Larry Sanger, Co-Founder of Wikipedia and Founder of Citizendium.

+ Is Citizendium a service the librarians need to support?

+ Do users understand both the strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia? In other words, do they understand how it works? Do users take the time to look and review background info or do they use it because it often comes up at the top of a search results page? Do they know where to find this info (the history tab on each page)? Do long tail entries, for example, get the same review as a “hot topic” entry. What does this mean for the future as people (human nature) move as the Wikipedia grows larger but the users move on to new volunteer projects? Recently News.com pointed out that some pop culture entries are longer than entries about historical events.

+ Do users understand, as described in this article, that some entries, legitimate ones from our perspective, require people that they are about to jump through hoops to get an entry approved while others don’t. This is both a positive but also a weakness. How much useful information is missed or not updated/added because it’s not to the liking (for whatever reason) by a Wikipedia editor and the person sharing it doesn’t want to have to spend time explaining themselves? Remember convenience?

+ Two years it was suggested that Wikipedia would require proof of credentials for some entries. Then, about two months ago, when the topic came up again, leadership again said that credentialing would be coming.

+ Do users understand that many ‘versions’ of Wikipedia exist? In other words, anyone can download the content and create their own version of Wikipedia but owners of these sites do not have to download updates thereby eliminating one of the positive aspects of Wikipedia.

+ In 2004, it was reported that Wikipedia would create review board of editors? What’s the latest on this plan?

*** Encarta Notes
1) Encarta asks for users assistance is editing entries. More on this page.
2) Accessing a large portion of Encarta content for free is easy.
+++ Go to Live.com Search
+++ Search for any Entry from Encarta.
+++ Click on an Encarta link.
+++ Now, look for a two hour countdown clock. Once this clock runs down to 0:00, simply search for another Encarta entry and the clock will return to 2:00.

EB Notes
+++ Many libraries offer free remote access to the complete encyclopaedia. A concise version is also available at no charge.

See Also: Walt Crawford’s Essay, Wikipedia Revisited, raises several interesting and important points.

See Also: Experts Debate: Will Wikipedia Mean the End Of Traditional Encyclopedias?

See Also: Wikipedia woos the offline world (via News.com)
Interesting. Of course, like other resources, one of Wikipedia’s strong points, the ability to quickly make corrections, will not be part of the CD.
From the article:

The Wikimedia Foundation said the articles were chosen as the best of the online encyclopedia and will be free from errors, bias, vandalism and marketing.

Who is reviewing each entry and what criteria are being used? These would be a strong claims coming from any reference publisher, even reference publications and database that have been around for years and with stellar editorial boards. We think if “traditional” reference publishers made this claim they would be they likely be scolded and laughed at. Also, isn’t it possible that the day after the CD is released some fact in one of the articles will change? How often will new or updated CD’s be released? Again, this is not a bad the language and promises are a bit over the top in our view.

UPDATE: ResourceShelf contributing editor Dan Giancaterino adds, “If that’s true [the comment about the CD being biased and error free], then Microsoft might as well release Vista and claim that it’s free from bugs and security holes.”

UPDATE: RS senior editor Shirl Kennedy adds, “I have and use the Wikipedia search plugin for Firefox. It’s a decent ready reference tool when I just need a quick factual answer — just yesterday, I needed info about Scylla and Charybdis — someone used the phrase and someone else wanted confirmation that it meant what he thought it meant — and the easiest and quickest thing to do was pop the phrase into the search plugin. At least with Wikipedia, you know you will get immediate “content” — not always a sure thing with a general Web engine.

And while we have access to EB and other reference tools through our library here at MacDill AFB, we are not IP-enabled, so using these things requires a trip to a specific URL and entering a login/password. That is how many extra steps? Using databases remotely via the local public library or the Florida Electronic Library requires entering a library card number…which requires going to my briefcase, extracting my wallet, rummaging through all the cards (everyone has too many cards) and hoping the library card is in there. For actual research, of course, it is eminently worth it. For a quick answer to a trivia question…nah. The Wikipedia search plugin is just fine, thank-you. But I doubt if I would ever make use of a CD.

UPDATED from Gary
File this in your “cool tool” folder if you use Firefox. Check out Add to Searchbar (ATS) being developed by Malte Kraus. It’s an add-on/plugin that allows the user to add just about any engine, database, catalog, etc. to their Firefox search bar. No coding needed and the entire process takes about 10 seconds. That’s right, two clicks and your done. We’ve used it with many types of databases and also have several library catalogs on our Searchbar. We’ve only encountered a few databases that do not work properly with ATS. Also, as you build a collection of databases, Malte’s Organize Search Engine add-on might also be of value. Btw, with just a little bit of work you can create one-click search access to most databases using Opera (select…Tools…Preferences…. Search…Add). Finally, IE users can add many search tools to the search box by completing the form on this page.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 25th, 2007 and is filed under Info Management and Retrieval, Information Industry, Libraries and Librarianship, Search News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.