Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You and Your Team.

Learn More →

The paradox of expertise: is the Wikipedia Reference Desk as good as your library?

The paradox of expertise: is the Wikipedia Reference Desk as good as your library? Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the quality of answers on the Wikipedia Reference Desk, and to compare it with library reference services. It aims to examine whether Wikipedia volunteers outperform expert reference librarians and exemplify the paradox of expertise. Design/methodology/approach – The study applied content analysis to a sample of 434 messages (77 questions and 357 responses) from the Wikipedia Reference Desk and focused on three SERVQUAL quality variables: reliability (accuracy, completeness, verifiability), responsiveness, and assurance. Findings – The study reports that on all three SERVQUAL measures quality of answers produced by the Wikipedia Reference Desk is comparable with that of library reference services. Research limitations/implications – The collaborative social reference model matched or outperformed the dyadic reference interview and should be further examined theoretically and empirically. The generalizability of the findings to other similar sites is questionable. Practical implications – Librarians and library science educators should examine the implications of the social reference on the future role of reference services. Originality/value – The study is the first to: examine the quality of the Wikipedia Reference Desk; extend research on Wikipedia quality; use SERVQUAL measures in evaluating Q&A sites; and compare Q&A sites with traditional reference services. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Documentation Emerald Publishing

The paradox of expertise: is the Wikipedia Reference Desk as good as your library?

Journal of Documentation , Volume 65 (6): 20 – Oct 16, 2009

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/the-paradox-of-expertise-is-the-wikipedia-reference-desk-as-good-as-eo0r9k33cT
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 Emerald Group Publishing Limited. All rights reserved.
ISSN
0022-0418
DOI
10.1108/00220410910998951
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the quality of answers on the Wikipedia Reference Desk, and to compare it with library reference services. It aims to examine whether Wikipedia volunteers outperform expert reference librarians and exemplify the paradox of expertise. Design/methodology/approach – The study applied content analysis to a sample of 434 messages (77 questions and 357 responses) from the Wikipedia Reference Desk and focused on three SERVQUAL quality variables: reliability (accuracy, completeness, verifiability), responsiveness, and assurance. Findings – The study reports that on all three SERVQUAL measures quality of answers produced by the Wikipedia Reference Desk is comparable with that of library reference services. Research limitations/implications – The collaborative social reference model matched or outperformed the dyadic reference interview and should be further examined theoretically and empirically. The generalizability of the findings to other similar sites is questionable. Practical implications – Librarians and library science educators should examine the implications of the social reference on the future role of reference services. Originality/value – The study is the first to: examine the quality of the Wikipedia Reference Desk; extend research on Wikipedia quality; use SERVQUAL measures in evaluating Q&A sites; and compare Q&A sites with traditional reference services.

Journal

Journal of DocumentationEmerald Publishing

Published: Oct 16, 2009

Keywords: Reference services; Quality; Product reliability

References