For those of us who are academically oriented, we all have heard, time and time again, how Wikipedia is not considered a qualified resource tool. However, I have to ask, what constitutes a qualified resource?
I have often found it rather laughable that people who have exclusive access to remarkable resources, such as those of us who have the privilege of being associated with UMW, think that they have the right to judge the average person so harshly when they don’t have access as we do to all of these wonderful resources.
Nothing is un-manipulated and everything is interpretation! How do we accurately discern whose view of something carries more weight?
I think it is wonderful that now we have various forums and platforms which make it possible for many voices to participate in what is a large and wide-ranging discussion. However, while this leads to an increase in quantity, that does not necessarily mean we always get good quality. Perhaps if scholars and academics want people to make better judgments and be better informed, I would suggest that they work together or with communities to make the resources that we readily have at our disposal more available to the public. Perhaps come up with their own version of Wikipedia. Work with public libraries all across the country to have homepages or websites structured in the same way our library does, after all they are taxpayer supported. Isn’t a community’s interest best served by ensuring that its citizens have the most accurate information available. Plus, I think if we want better students, it helps to let them have access to resource tools that give them a baseline for beginning their pursuits.