Jesse Vorst wrote:  
> Sumitra refers to Wikipedia. Social scientists should be aware of the   
> "openness" of this so-called encyclopedia. I keep finding  factual   
> errors and editorialised histories in my students' papers for which   
> they gave W. as the source. My latest course outline requires   
> corroborating evidence to accompany references to Wikipedia entries.  
  
  
It would be an interesting follow-up assignment to ask your students to   
go back and investigate claims in Wikipedia that they cannot   
corroborate, and then have them go in and make the appropriate   
corrections themselves.  That, after all, is the beauty of Wikipedia.    
In fact, it would make a great research assignment for an undergrad HET   
class to have them pick the Wikipedia entry of a famous economist and   
use other sources to determine just how accurate the entry is, and then,   
after consultation with the instructor, make the appropriate changes   
themselves.  
  
One of the most educational things one can do for undergraduates who   
rely heavily on Wikipedia is to find an electronic classroom, open a   
Wikipedia entry on a subject you know nothing about and proceed to make   
changes to it right there in front of the class.  That's when they   
really realize how a wiki works and what is both wonderful and dangerous   
about it.   
  
  
> The widespread lack of W's reliability was, again, illustrated a few   
> days ago when U.S. Congressional staff was found to have changed   
> biographies of  their political masters. Disinformation for the masses   
> (or whatever Orwell called it)?  
  
Maybe so, but unlike the world of 1984, wikis are open so that such   
tactics can be discovered, publicized, and corrected as you have shown   
here.  Wikipedia has its problems, but it also has built-in correction   
mechanisms as well.  Those of us who understand markets should recognize   
the parallels.  
  
Steve Horwitz