Wikipedia vs the others

The RSS feeds from library bloggers inspire, push and amaze me. Today I was introduced by The LibrarianInBlack to Digital Reference written by Stephen Francouer. I have added Digital Reference to my feeds.

Perusing past entries in Digital Reference, I came across a series of posts (see May 5) comparing Wikipedia to three subscription online resources.

"While most of the topics were covered in all four sources, I found it interesting which sources had a main entry on the topic vs. which ones covered the topic in some other entry. For all but two topics, Wikipedia had a separate entry on each topic. This is not surprising, given that in Wikipedia, which is born digital, there is all the space in the world for yet another page, while the other three sources are all born in print, where each additional page added means greater printing costs."

A podcast on the topic of small library marketing suggested creating ones own Wikpipedia entry for the library. I went to look at Wikipedia to do that for my library. I was surprised at the policies on verifiability and original research.

At this point Wikipedia doesn't exude the cachet of authority of a subscription resource like Encyclopedia Britannica. That shady reputation may be coming to an end as more articles in Wikipedia are footnoted with verifiable sources.