Has Wiki won? The greybeard of encyclopedias, Encyclopaedia Britannica, has gone the way of Wikipedia. But if you read EB’s press release announcing it would finally accept “more participation and collaboration from experts and readers,” EB doesn’t even give a glancing nod of thanks to their new online rival, Wikipedia. I say it’s about damn time; and Encyclopedia Britannica is about five years late in addressing the issue. The major complaint/concern I’ve heard about Wikipedia is about the chance of digital vandalism. And yes, on rare occasions misinformation — intentional or honest mistakes — have made it on Wiki. But with a community of experts ready to self-correct anything, and I mean anything, that makes it on to a Wiki page; mistakes tend not to live long on Wikipedia. Before now, if a mistake was found in EB, nothing could be done to correct the mistake until the next hard-cover edition was released. At Quinnipiac University where I’m an Assistant Dean in the School of Communications, there have been countless discussions on “what to do about Wiki?” The most common question: “Should students be allowed to use it as official citation in papers?” I’m not the boss of these folks, but I say yes, let students use Wikipedia as an official, but not exclusive, source. I certainly allow my “Reporting for the Web” students to use Wiki as a main source. And, in my role as Internet/Technology Reporter for Fox 61 I’ve used Wikipedia dozens of times as a primary source for information I put on air. Haven’t gotten sued yet! Not too long ago I interviewed Jimmy Wales, the creator of Wikipedia, Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist list and social networking expert dana boyd. That story is below.

Later in the same week, I was also interviewed on WTIC-AM radio about Wiki’s and so-called new-media. That interview is below: