Biases regarding reference formats

I think we all have a bias when it comes to the electronic vs print question. For myself, I think that I equally value both electronic and print. They both have a place, and should both be used. When I’m teaching, I don’t mind which they use. This, however, doesn’t mean I don’t have biases about it. I come from the generation of internet research, and of Wikipedia, and my bias is very strong there.

I’m going to go out on a limb here, and say that I think Wikipedia is great. Is it always reliable? No, but neither are many other online sources (for the same reason), and neither are many print sources (because knowledge changes and they don’t). If evaluating information is a key part of information literacy, then surely teachers’ and librarians’ insistence on No Wikipedia! is poor information literacy? We should be reading everything critically, not automatically trusting or distrusting sources. Also, I’ve never come across a crass error. Missing or unclear technical details do occur, but at the elementary level, how much technical detail do we need? The writing is sometimes unclear, but again, let’s assess on a case by case basis. In terms of question-answering reference sources, it is fast, usually accurate, well laid-out, extensively cross-referenced, and easy to navigate. It is a great place to look up definitions, or to gather basic information about a topic. We of course need to check with other sources as well if it is formal research and not just a casual query, but shouldn’t that always be true? Surely the requirement for a permitted reference source isn’t “perfect”.

I am a teacher, and I like Wikipedia. No embarrassed reservations, explanations, or excuses.