Wikis

I have a reference librarian's natural suspicion of information that is not "authoritative" - written by someone with a degree after their name, an "expert" on the subject, in a respectd and reviewed reference book from a reputable publihser. Wikipedia and the like have challenged me to rethink this. There has been various studies, some showing that the information in wikis is more accurate, others that it is less accurate, others that it is about the same. In the March 15 Library Journal, Eli Guinnee (Editor in Chief Library Student Journal) is quoted as saying, "An inaccuracy in Britannica is (mis) taken as fact, an inaccuracy in Wikipedia is taken with a grain of salt, easily confirmed or proved wrong. In the end, the question is not whether wisdon from the masses contains more factual errors, the questions is whether that wisdom is more useful, more effiecient. And, I think, the answer is 'yes'."