ILLIAD Service Enhancement Saturday, July 26th, 7:00 PM – July 27th, 12:00 AM

Aside

 toolbox

Hello ILLiad Users!!
Just a heads up that late Saturday night if you’re needing to order any articles or books through your ILLiad account, there will be an interruption in service.

ILLiad is scheduled for a five-hour service interruption on July 26th from 7:00 PM to midnight. We have scheduled this late night enhancement to minimize any inconvenience.

Questions? Email us at ill@usfca.edu. Thanks for your patience!

ILLIAD Service Enhancement Saturday, July 12th,10:00 PM – July 13 12:00 AM

Aside

 

toolbox

Hello ILLiad users!!

If you are up late Saturday night and needing to order any articles or books through your ILLiad account, please know there will be a short delay.

ILLiad is scheduled for a two-hour service interruption on July 12th from 10:00 PM to midnight. We have scheduled this late night enhancement to minimize any inconvenience.

Question? Email us at ill@usfca.edu. Thanks!

 

Link+ service enhancements June 25-30

There will be no Link+ deliveries to Gleeson library from other libraries between Wednesday June 25th and Monday June 30th 2014. You can still request Link + books and media online via the library catalog Ignacio during that time. However, if you place a request that would otherwise be delivered for you that week, expect a delay. We hope to have all delayed requests delivered between Tuesday June 30th and Wednesday July 1st. As soon as your books are ready to be picked up, we will send you an email notice. If you have any questions, please feel free to give us a call at 415-422-2662  or stop by the Gleeson Circulation  desk.

Professional Development Leave – Gleeson Library Style

ImageThanks to the Professional Development Leave program, USF’s Gleeson Library librarians are eligible to apply for a research leave to engage in intensive research. For my professional development leave in 2012 I created Habobib, a bibliography of publications by and about Habonim Dror, an international Jewish youth movement. In conjunction with formulating the bibliography, I also began the process of developing an online repository of Habonim Dror publications.

Continue reading

Wikipedia vs. Peer Reviewed Sources

We’ve all done it… You want to garner a quick overview of a topic, so without thinking you drop the terms in a Google search, click on the hit to Wikipedia, and engage in information gathering.

Of course most of us have at least considered the credibility (or lack thereof) of the information, although we still go to Wikipedia as if by default.

Here in the library, we like to use errors/hoaxes on Wikipedia and the prejudiced editing of Wikipedia articles as learning points, with a plug to our subscribed online encyclopedias. But we know students will use Wikipedia just as we all do.

It all still begs the question: How credible is Wikipedia?

wikipedia debate

In 2005 the peer-reviewed journal Nature published an article comparing the accuracy of entries on specific science topics in Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia [click here to access the article through the library's subscription to Nature], a story picked up by many national news outlets, including CNET. The Nature authors say:

The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three.

In an interesting study of dueling empirical methods, Encyclopædia Britannica took Nature to task and refuted their findings in their own study, available through this link. (For further information on the duel, check out this timeline from the UC system.)

Nonetheless, many took Nature’s proclamation to mean we could, more or less, rely on the information gleaned from Wikipedia. Personally, I took this to confirm that there is no one “truth” and that the credibility of “facts” will always be debated based on someone’s viewpoint.

Now, almost a decade since Nature kicked off the squabble, the peer-reviewed Journal of the Osteopathic Association has found the opposite [click here to read the article through the library's subscription to JAOA], a story picked up by the Daily Mail and other media outlets. The JAOA authors say:

Most Wikipedia articles representing the 10 most costly medical conditions in the United States contain many errors when checked against standard peer-reviewed sources. Caution should be used when using Wikipedia to answer questions regarding patient care. 

And thus, the pendulum swings the other way. As the Daily Mail says, “Do NOT try to diagnose yourself on Wikipedia!” and with that, the (lack of) credibility of Wikipedia is again introduced into our collective consciousness.

I find that Wikipedia is great for stuff that will never make it into the Encyclopædia Britannica, for example the Berghain in Berlin (“the best club in the world”), and that it’s helpful for doing pre-research: getting my acronyms straight, deconstructing my search topic into related terms, confirming what year something took place. I then use this information to go elsewhere, to my trusted sources that I consider credible.

What do you think? When do you go to Wikipedia and when do you go elsewhere? What are your alternatives to Wikipedia? Leave your thoughts in the comments.