Resources

Edit 0 25 …

Finalized Resources (please let me know if you have any concerns so I can firm up Sunday)

  1. Erik W. Black. (2008). Wikipedia and academic peer review :Wikipedia as a recognised medium for scholarly publication?. Online Information Review, 32(1), 73-88. Retrieved June 24, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1440900561).. http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdlink?Ver=1&Exp=06-23-2015&FMT=7&DID=1440900561&RQT=309&cfc=1. see title for explanation of relevance. attached pdf in file.
  2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBbKDcu_wfg this is a link to a youtube video - not sure how to cite. but it could be imbedded to show how wikipedia could be used to devlop reliable acedemic sources. thoughts on this, I included the imbed code.<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="[[http://www.youtube.com/v/DBbKDcu_wfg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param]] name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DBbKDcu_wfg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
  3. Fallis, D. (2008). Toward an epistemology of Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 59(10), 1662-1674. Retrieved from Business Source Corporate database.
  4. Rector, L.H. (2008). Comparison of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in historical articles. Reference Services Review, 36(1), 7-22. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1440841811).
    http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdweb?index=6&sid=9&srchmode=1&vinst=PROD&fmt=6&startpage=-1&clientid=70192&vname=PQD&RQT=309&did=1440841811&scaling=FULL&ts=1277345416&vtype=PQD&rqt=309&TS=1277345444&clientId=70192
  5. Berinstein, P. (2006, March). Wikipedia and Britannica: The kid's all right (and so's the old man). Searcher, 14(3), 16-26. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from ProQuest Computing. (Document ID: 1002215161).
    http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdweb?index=0&did=1002215161&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1277354447&clientId=70192
  6. Badke, William, 2009. Educational Leadership, Mar2009, Stepping Beyond Wikipedia, Vol. 66 Issue 6, p54-58, 5p; (AN 36666626) Retreived June 24, 2010 from http://cv8yh9th3f.search.serialssolutions.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/?SS_Source=3&genre=article&sid=ProQ:&atitle=Stepping%20Beyond%20WIKIPEDIA&title=Educational%20Leadership&issn=00131784&date=03%2F01%2F2009&volume=66&issue=6&spage=54&SS_docid=000001663589531&author=William%20Badke
  7. Giles, J. (2005). Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature, 438(7070), 900-1. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from Research Library. (Document ID: 962266351).
    http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdweb?index=0&did=962266351&SrchMode=2&sid=3&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1277353348
  8. Moeller, E. (2009). Wikipedia Scholarly Survey Results. Wikimedia.org, Retrieved 6/23/10 from http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/17/Scholarly_Survey_Results.pdf. Saved as pdf in our files. Interesting survey results we could use.
  9. Terdiman, D. (2005). Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica. CNET News. Retrieved 6/23/10 from http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html has some interesting facts about the differences in errors between Wikipedia and the old school encyclopedia britannica.
  10. Is Wikipedia Becoming a Respectable Academic Source? retreived June 22, 2010 from http://digitalscholarship.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/is-wikipedia-becoming-a-respectable-academic-source/
fyi the first 6 had 3 votes, the last 4 had 2 votes a piece. I made my best judgement, but if anyone feels passionately about one of the last for please let everyone know so we can decide on the resources that will work best for everyone.

Comment from Barb: The top 10 list looks good to me. Great job Theresa on compiling our recommendations. We all seemed to be in agreement on most so that is a positive outcome. This needs to be posted to the week 3 discussion if we are all in agreement. I will check later this evening and post to the discussion area if someone else hasn't already.

Comment from Annette: I don't want to seem like a fence-rider, but I think we had a great list of resources to pick from so we couldn't stray too far from some good stuff no matter which pieces were selected. The list is acceptable to me. Thanks for your work this week Theresa!



__
Resources
(Please include complete APA citations for all references for accurate documentation of final product. Also include hyperlinks to reference if possible for ease of review). If it is not possible to post a link, then include a summary of the content of the source. In addition, for each source, write a very brief rationale that explains to your group members how it is potentially helpful for the project and why you chose it.


Theresa
  1. Erik W. Black. (2008). Wikipedia and academic peer review :Wikipedia as a recognised medium for scholarly publication?. Online Information Review, 32(1), 73-88. Retrieved June 24, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1440900561).. http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdlink?Ver=1&Exp=06-23-2015&FMT=7&DID=1440900561&RQT=309&cfc=1. see title for explanation of relevance. attached pdf in file.
  2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBbKDcu_wfg this is a link to a youtube video - not sure how to cite. but it could be imbedded to show how wikipedia could be used to devlop reliable acedemic sources. thoughts on this, I included the imbed code.<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="[[http://www.youtube.com/v/DBbKDcu_wfg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param]] name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DBbKDcu_wfg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
  3. Burns, L, (2008, May 13), Truth by Consensus: Wikipedia as a Scholarly Source? Writers News Weekly, 5, 7. Retrieved 6/23/10 from http://www.writersnewsweekly.com/wikipedia_truth_by_consensus.html
  4. Moeller, E. (2009). Wikipedia Scholarly Survey Results. Wikimedia.org, Retrieved 6/23/10 from http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/17/Scholarly_Survey_Results.pdf. Saved as pdf in our files. Interesting survey results we could use.
  5. Terdiman, D. (2005). Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica. CNET News. Retrieved 6/23/10 from http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html has some interesting facts about the differences in errors between Wikipedia and the old school encyclopedia britannica.

Frank

1. Fallis, D. (2008). Toward an epistemology of Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 59(10), 1662-1674. Retrieved from Business Source Corporate database.

I have access to ASTD's (American Society for Training and Development) online resource website and found this article in their business section. The attachment can be seen by clicking on 'Recent Changes' on the top left. I've attached a PDF document for everyone to view. The author conducted the research for this article at the School for Information Resources and Library Science at the University of Arizona.

2. ASTD. (2007, November 1) 10 Things You Didn't Know About Wikipedia. T+D Magazine, 61, 11.

The following article was taken from an article presented in ASTD's T+D Magazine. It provides some useful tidbits of information.

3. PC World. (Jun 16, 2010). Wikipedia to Unlock Frequently Vandalized Pages. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,198970/article.html.

This last article may not be as reliable as the other suggestions I posted, but it provides some information from a standing point of a online news posting.

Annette--These are alphabetized, not in order of importance. There are more than five, most from the Walden Library and several contain formulas/metrics. Just scanning (or is it skimming?) each should give us valuable information (and A LOT of it). I'm putting a Word doc with these listings in the discussion area. There are a few additional articles where we might get a pull quote from Jimmy Wales to use in our presentation somehow, but these were the key articles that I think will give us good information to work with.

Compares the opponents of Wikipedia to the devotees, describing one key feature that Wikipedia has that others don’t, currency.
Badke, W. (2008, March). What to do with Wikipedia. Online, 32(2), 48-50. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1442462021).
http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdweb?index=14&sid=9&srchmode=1&vinst=PROD&fmt=6&startpage=-1&clientid=70192&vname=PQD&RQT=309&did=1442462021&scaling=FULL&ts=1277345525&vtype=PQD&rqt=309&TS=1277345544&clientId=70192

Describes who contributes (volunteers/authorities) to each.
Berinstein, P. (2006, March). Wikipedia and Britannica: The kid's all right (and so's the old man). Searcher, 14(3), 16-26. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from ProQuest Computing. (Document ID: 1002215161).
http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdweb?index=0&did=1002215161&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1277354447&clientId=70192

How technical do you want to get? Includes formulas and stats.
Brandes, U., & Lerner, J. (2008). Visual analysis of controversy in user-generated encyclopedias*. Information Visualization: Special Issue on Visual Analytics Science and Technology, 7(1), 34-48. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1452797411).
http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdweb?index=5&did=1452797411&SrchMode=1&sid=9&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1277345416&clientId=70192


User profile data and top 20 educational and reference sites data.
Rainie, L. & Tancer, B. (2007, April). Wikipedia users. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/mediaFiles/Reports/2007/PIP_Wikipedia07.pdf.pdf

From the abstract: “This paper seeks to provide reference librarians and faculty with evidence regarding the comprehensiveness and accuracy of Wikipedia articles compared with respected reference resources. This paper seeks to provide reference librarians and faculty with evidence regarding the comprehensiveness and accuracy of Wikipedia articles compared with respected reference resources.”
Rector, L.H. (2008). Comparison of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in historical articles. Reference Services Review, 36(1), 7-22. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1440841811).
http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdweb?index=6&sid=9&srchmode=1&vinst=PROD&fmt=6&startpage=-1&clientid=70192&vname=PQD&RQT=309&did=1440841811&scaling=FULL&ts=1277345416&vtype=PQD&rqt=309&TS=1277345444&clientId=70192

Authors argue that the lack of true identity for contributors to Wikipedia articles “jeopardizes the validity of the information.”
Santana, A., & Wood, D. (2009). Transparency and social responsibility issues for Wikipedia. Ethics and Information Technology, 11(2), 133-144. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1731797931).
http://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=http:proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdweb?did=1731797931&sid=2&Fmt=6&clientId=70192&RQT=309&VName=PQD
  • Authors examine Wikipedia edit frequency to show how collaboration can make it difficult to measure quality, even with complex metric.
Wilkinson,D.M. & Huberman, B.A. (2007). Cooperation and quality inWikipedia. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/idl/papers/wikipedia/wikipedia07.pdf

Authors investigate the use of Wikipedia for course-related research, including, “how is Wikipedia used in relation to other information sources.”
Head, A. & Eisenberg, M. (2010, February 26). How today’s college students use Wikipedia for course-related research. First Monday [Online] 15(3). Retrieved June 23, 2010, from http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2830/2476



Barbara
  1. Badke, William, 2009. Educational Leadership, Mar2009, Stepping Beyond Wikipedia, Vol. 66 Issue 6, p54-58, 5p; (AN 36666626) Retreived June 24, 2010 from http://cv8yh9th3f.search.serialssolutions.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/?SS_Source=3&genre=article&sid=ProQ:&atitle=Stepping%20Beyond%20WIKIPEDIA&title=Educational%20Leadership&issn=00131784&date=03%2F01%2F2009&volume=66&issue=6&spage=54&SS_docid=000001663589531&author=William%20Badke
This source provided information on using online and traditional resouces, using CARS checklist to evaluate sources. I looked at this as a resource for providing information for characteristics of acceptable scholastic resources.

  1. Lucy Holman Rector. Reference Services Review. Bradford: 2008. Comparison of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in historical articles, Vol. 36, Iss. 1; p. 7 retrieved June 24, 2010 from http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdweb?index=6&did=1440841811&SrchMode=1&sid=6&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1277436513&clientId=70192
Compares accuracy of Wikipedia with respected reference resources
  1. Is Wikipedia Becoming a Respectable Academic Source? retreived June 22, 2010 from http://digitalscholarship.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/is-wikipedia-becoming-a-respectable-academic-source/

One more that looks interesting and has facts about statistics on Wikipedia that may be helpful.
Chris Cadelago. (2008, August 24). Online encyclopedia defines its future :Despite popularity, Wikimedia Foundation ties its value to education, not advertising. San Francisco Chronicle,p. A.1. Retrieved June 25, 2010, from ProQuest Central. (Document ID: 1538228071). ----

BEST 8-10 SOURCES

FRANK
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBbKDcu_wfg this is a link to a youtube video - not sure how to cite. but it could be imbedded to show how wikipedia could be used to devlop reliable acedemic sources. thoughts on this, I included the imbed code.

2. Terdiman, D. (2005). Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica. CNET News. Retrieved 6/23/10 from http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html has some interesting facts about the differences in errors between Wikipedia and the old school encyclopedia britannica.

3. Fallis, D. (2008). Toward an epistemology of Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 59(10), 1662-1674. Retrieved from Business Source Corporate database.

I have access to ASTD's (American Society for Training and Development) online resource website and found this article in their business section. The attachment can be seen by clicking on 'Recent Changes' on the top left. I've attached a PDF document for everyone to view. The author conducted the research for this article at the School for Information Resources and Library Science at the University of Arizona.

4. ASTD. (2007, November 1) 10 Things You Didn't Know About Wikipedia. T+D Magazine, 61, 11.

The following article was taken from an article presented in ASTD's T+D Magazine. It provides some useful tidbits of information.

5. Authors argue that the lack of true identity for contributors to Wikipedia articles “jeopardizes the validity of the information.”
Santana, A., & Wood, D. (2009). Transparency and social responsibility issues for Wikipedia. Ethics and Information Technology, 11(2), 133-144. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1731797931).
http://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=http:proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdweb?did=1731797931&sid=2&Fmt=6&clientId=70192&RQT=309&VName=PQD

6. Authors investigate the use of Wikipedia for course-related research, including, “how is Wikipedia used in relation to other information sources.”
Head, A. & Eisenberg, M. (2010, February 26). How today’s college students use Wikipedia for course-related research. First Monday [Online] 15(3). Retrieved June 23, 2010, from http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2830/2476

7. Badke, William, 2009. Educational Leadership, Mar2009, Stepping Beyond Wikipedia, Vol. 66 Issue 6, p54-58, 5p; (AN 36666626) Retreived June 24, 2010 from http://cv8yh9th3f.search.serialssolutions.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/?SS_Source=3&genre=article&sid=ProQ:&atitle=Stepping%20Beyond%20WIKIPEDIA&title=Educational%20Leadership&issn=00131784&date=03%2F01%2F2009&volume=66&issue=6&spage=54&SS_docid=000001663589531&author=William%20Badke
This source provided information on using online and traditional resouces, using CARS checklist to evaluate sources. I looked at this as a resource for providing information for characteristics of acceptable scholastic resources.

8. s Wikipedia Becoming a Respectable Academic Source? retreived June 22, 2010 fromhttp://digitalscholarship.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/is-wikipedia-becoming-a-respectable-academic-source/

Best 8-10 resources
THERESA
  1. Erik W. Black. (2008). Wikipedia and academic peer review :Wikipedia as a recognised medium for scholarly publication?. Online Information Review, 32(1), 73-88. Retrieved June 24, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1440900561).. http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdlink?Ver=1&Exp=06-23-2015&FMT=7&DID=1440900561&RQT=309&cfc=1. see title for explanation of relevance. attached pdf in file.
  2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBbKDcu_wfg this is a link to a youtube video - not sure how to cite. but it could be imbedded to show how wikipedia could be used to devlop reliable acedemic sources. thoughts on this, I included the imbed code.<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="[[http://www.youtube.com/v/DBbKDcu_wfg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param]] name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DBbKDcu_wfg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
  3. Burns, L, (2008, May 13), Truth by Consensus: Wikipedia as a Scholarly Source? Writers News Weekly, 5, 7. Retrieved 6/23/10 from http://www.writersnewsweekly.com/wikipedia_truth_by_consensus.html
  4. Moeller, E. (2009). Wikipedia Scholarly Survey Results. Wikimedia.org, Retrieved 6/23/10 from http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/17/Scholarly_Survey_Results.pdf. Saved as pdf in our files. Interesting survey results we could use.
  5. Terdiman, D. (2005). Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica. CNET News. Retrieved 6/23/10 from http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html has some interesting facts about the differences in errors between Wikipedia and the old school encyclopedia britannica.
  6. Fallis, D. (2008). Toward an epistemology of Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 59(10), 1662-1674. Retrieved from Business Source Corporate database.
  7. ASTD. (2007, November 1) 10 Things You Didn't Know About Wikipedia. T+D Magazine, 61, 11.
  8. Berinstein, P. (2006, March). Wikipedia and Britannica: The kid's all right (and so's the old man). Searcher, 14(3), 16-26. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from ProQuest Computing. (Document ID: 1002215161).
    http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdweb?index=0&did=1002215161&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1277354447&clientId=70192
  9. Badke, W. (2008, March). What to do with Wikipedia. Online, 32(2), 48-50. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1442462021).
    http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdweb?index=14&sid=9&srchmode=1&vinst=PROD&fmt=6&startpage=-1&clientid=70192&vname=PQD&RQT=309&did=1442462021&scaling=FULL&ts=1277345525&vtype=PQD&rqt=309&TS=1277345544&clientId=70192
  10. Lucy Holman Rector. Reference Services Review. Bradford: 2008. Comparison of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in historical articles, Vol. 36, Iss. 1; p. 7 retrieved June 24, 2010 from http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdweb?index=6&did=1440841811&SrchMode=1&sid=6&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1277436513&clientId=70192


Annette's Top 10 Resources
Theresa, two thoughts. I like your YouTube video, but does it need to be considered part of the "research" from the 8-10 article perspective. I also like your CNet article, but almost every article references the "Nature" article for the comparison, so I'm wondering if we should use the original source. I put the citation and link at the top of my list.

This article is cited in almost every other article referring to the credibility and reliability of Wikipedia.
1. Giles, J. (2005). Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature, 438(7070), 900-1. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from Research Library. (Document ID: 962266351).
http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdweb?index=0&did=962266351&SrchMode=2&sid=3&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1277353348&clientId=70192

2. Fallis, D. (2008). Toward an epistemology of Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 59(10), 1662-1674. Retrieved from Business Source Corporate database.

3. Santana, A., & Wood, D. (2009). Transparency and social responsibility issues for Wikipedia. Ethics and Information Technology, 11(2), 133-144. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1731797931).
http://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=http:proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdweb?did=1731797931&sid=2&Fmt=6&clientId=70192&RQT=309&VName=PQD

4. Wilkinson,D.M. & Huberman, B.A. (2007). Cooperation and quality inWikipedia. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/idl/papers/wikipedia/wikipedia07.pdf

5. Head, A. & Eisenberg, M. (2010, February 26). How today’s college students use Wikipedia for course-related research. First Monday [Online] 15(3). Retrieved June 23, 2010, from http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2830/2476

6. Black, E.W. (2008). Wikipedia and academic peer review: Wikipedia as a recognised medium for scholarly publication?. Online Information Review, 32(1), 73-88. Retrieved June 24, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1440900561). http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdlink?Ver=1&Exp=06-23-2015&FMT=7&DID=1440900561&RQT=309&cfc=1.

7. Rainie, L. & Tancer, B. (2007, April). Wikipedia users. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/mediaFiles/Reports/2007/PIP_Wikipedia07.pdf.pdf

8. Rector, L.H. (2008). Comparison of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in historical articles. Reference Services Review, 36(1), 7-22. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1440841811).
http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdweb?index=6&sid=9&srchmode=1&vinst=PROD&fmt=6&startpage=-1&clientid=70192&vname=PQD&RQT=309&did=1440841811&scaling=FULL&ts=1277345416&vtype=PQD&rqt=309&TS=1277345444&clientId=70192

9. Berinstein, P. (2006, March). Wikipedia and Britannica: The kid's all right (and so's the old man). Searcher, 14(3), 16-26. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from ProQuest Computing. (Document ID: 1002215161).
http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdweb?index=0&did=1002215161&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1277354447&clientId=70192
10. Badke, William, 2009. Educational Leadership, Mar2009, Stepping Beyond Wikipedia, Vol. 66 Issue 6, p54-58, 5p; (AN 36666626) Retrieved June 24, 2010 from http://cv8yh9th3f.search.serialssolutions.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/?SS_Source=3&genre=article&sid=ProQ:&atitle=Stepping%20Beyond%20WIKIPEDIA&title=Educational%20Leadership&issn=00131784&date=03%2F01%2F2009&volume=66&issue=6&spage=54&SS_docid=000001663589531&author=William%20Badke


Barb's Top 10 sources
I agree with Annette and was thinking the same thing about J. Wales article in Nature. It was referenced in several of the sources everyone pulled so I included that in my top 10.

1. Erik W. Black. (2008). Wikipedia and academic peer review :Wikipedia as a recognised medium for scholarly publication?. Online Information Review, 32(1), 73-88. Retrieved June 24, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1440900561).. http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdlink?Ver=1&Exp=06-23-2015&FMT=7&DID=1440900561&RQT=309&cfc=1
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBbKDcu_wfg
3. Moeller, E. (2009). Wikipedia Scholarly Survey Results. Wikimedia.org, Retrieved 6/23/10 from http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/17/Scholarly_Survey_Results.pdf. Saved as pdf in our files. Interesting survey results we could use.
4. Badke, W. (2008, March). What to do with Wikipedia. Online, 32(2), 48-50. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1442462021).
http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdweb?index=14&sid=9&srchmode=1&vinst=PROD&fmt=6&startpage=-1&clientid=70192&vname=PQD&RQT=309&did=1442462021&scaling=FULL&ts=1277345525&vtype=PQD&rqt=309&TS=1277345544&clientId=70192
5. Berinstein, P. (2006, March). Wikipedia and Britannica: The kid's all right (and so's the old man). Searcher, 14(3), 16-26. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from ProQuest Computing. (Document ID: 1002215161).
http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdweb?index=0&did=1002215161&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1277354447
6. Brandes, U., & Lerner, J. (2008). Visual analysis of controversy in user-generated encyclopedias*. Information Visualization: Special Issue on Visual Analytics Science and Technology, 7(1), 34-48. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1452797411).
http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdweb?index=5&did=1452797411&SrchMode=1&sid=9&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1277345416&clientId=70192
7. Rector, L.H. (2008). Comparison of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in historical articles. Reference Services Review, 36(1), 7-22. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1440841811).
http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdweb?index=6&sid=9&srchmode=1&vinst=PROD&fmt=6&startpage=-1&clientid=70192&vname=PQD&RQT=309&did=1440841811&scaling=FULL&ts=1277345416&vtype=PQD&rqt=309&TS=1277345444&clientId=70192
8. Badke, William, 2009. Educational Leadership, Mar2009, Stepping Beyond Wikipedia, Vol. 66 Issue 6, p54-58, 5p; (AN 36666626) Retreived June 24, 2010 from http://cv8yh9th3f.search.serialssolutions.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/?SS_Source=3&genre=article&sid=ProQ:&atitle=Stepping%20Beyond%20WIKIPEDIA&title=Educational%20Leadership&issn=00131784&date=03%2F01%2F2009&volume=66&issue=6&spage=54&SS_docid=000001663589531&author=William%20Badke
9. Is Wikipedia Becoming a Respectable Academic Source? retreived June 22, 2010 from http://digitalscholarship.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/is-wikipedia-becoming-a-respectable-academic-source/
10. Giles, J. (2005). Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature, 438(7070), 900-1. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from Research Library. (Document ID: 962266351).
http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdweb?index=0&did=962266351&SrchMode=2&sid=3&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1277353348