What's the deal with Wikipedia? I mean, what kind of credible news outlet would allow any regular Joe Schmoe to edit, update and correct the Web site without having any credentials to do so? No seriously, you tell me. I can't figure it out.
The idea absolutely blows my mind. This particular Web site takes the concept of "citizen journalist" to the extreme -- allowing regular citizens to act as copy editors, reporters, and multimedia producers all in one. And I have to be honest, I love it.
Where else can you not be sure of the content you are reading. Sure, most of it is probably accurate and thoroughly researched, but that's neither here nor there. The fact that I'm simply allowed to change an entry on Wikipedia makes me feel all warm and tingly inside. As is often the case, a normal, everday citizen like myself might be just as capable as posting to Wikipedia that some academic using a bunch of scientific jargon that no one understands.
And so, given the option of the World Book online or Wikipedia, I'll take the latter. Maybe not for accuracy's sake, or to cite in my research paper. But simply for humor or other reasons. It's not everyday that a Web site like Wikipedia comes around.
Okay. Irony is harder to pull off than other approaches but this one works okay. I guess we'll start polishing this approach. I think the ironic voice is working in this one but my suggestion would be employ the tool in the service of a slightly higher ideal. Or a slightly more developed approach to humor as a reason to link.
I think Wikipedia has easier search engines than academic sites.
When I try to hunt for information on the KU library Web site, I feel like Ali Baba at the robbers' cave. It requires that magic word combo.
I love Wikipedia. People policing themselves is the best policy. It is a great "first" source. Nice work Matt.