Quill - December 2008 - (Page 18) lions of fans. It’s also presented in an easyto-follow way, as the subheads help guide. There’s a summary section, a “Theme” section, a history section, even a translation section. It’s a good rudimentary article. Conclusion The article reads smoothly, cohesively and informatively. It doesn’t offer anything new for the hardcore fan, but for a journalist who needs a little Harry Potter 4-1-1, it’ll be an invaluable guide. sies” that details such issues.) Finally, it was surprising to discover the article’s omission of the highly suspect story of how BSA founder William Boyce initially encountered the Scouting program in England. This story, steeped in obvious folklore, is recounted in many BSA circles, including its handbook for youth. However, the legend (and it really is just that) is not recounted in the article. In fact, the section on the BSA’s origins is relatively brief. ability, is the presence of numerous correlated Wikipedia articles on the BSA. These tend to be less general and focus more on one thematic topic, such as noteworthy Eagle Scouts or controversial membership policies, and seem to use more sources external to the BSA. Conclusion Although the content of the article is certainly encyclopedic in nature, the reoccurring assessment of Wikipedia as a credible reference source remains. The article is a good beginning for journalistic or scholarly research on the BSA, but writers should reference the site with caution and use the article only as a jumping-off point for more in-depth, credible and objective sources of information. — Scott Leadingham, Eagle Scout, former BSA camp program director Society of Professional Journalists What better Wiki article to critique than our own organization? After all, when you Google “Society of Professional Journalists,” it’s the fourth hit, after variants of our own Web site. Accuracy of content While the content is accurate, the spectrum of content is a bit baffling. Why mention that “the organization helped foster the creation of the American Reporter, the first electronic Internet-only newspaper” and not our annual conference or helpful programs? Authorship The meagerness of the article aside, the writing is mixed, with very short, barebones sentences. There is also this strange bit: “the annual Sigma Delta Chi Awards, which honour excellence in journalism.” “Honour” is the British spelling; why would our American journalism organization, based on First Amendment Constitutional rights, have a British spelling? — Amy Guyer, Harry Potter reader of Authorship One of the other critiques of Wikipeeight years dia is the presence of multiple authors for any given article, leading to questions of The Boy Scouts of America The Boy Scouts of America has come a writing style cohesiveness, among other long way from its beginnings in 1910. To- concerns. The BSA article does well not day, as a group that is touted as the largest to obviously mix writing styles, assuming youth organization in the United States, the multiple authors. It’s not a stretch to say BSA is nearly ingrained as an American tra- the article, or at least large portions of it, dition on par with baseball and apple pie. If was written by people with a long, educatthe BSA is really as large (both in member- ed history with the BSA, even paid profesship and in the psyches of citizens) as this sionals in the national office. claim purports, it follows that its encyclopedic references are similarly behemoth. In Usability Those looking to Wikipedia content for terms of Wikipedia, this is true. general information about the BSA will find a plethora of information. This is true Accuracy of content Covering everything from the organi- for people writing introductory academic zation’s origins to current membership pieces as well as parents or youth interstatistics, the article is exhaustive in scope ested in becoming involved with the orgayet provides a digestible overview of the or- nization. However, for in-depth research, both of a scholarly and journalistic nature, ganization. One of the reoccurring criticisms of the BSA article should be used for quick Wikipedia is the validity of content pro- reference, never as a primary source. For example, membership statistics in vided by unvetted site users. As much of the content in this article is mined directly the article, although garnered from the from the Boy Scouts’ national Web site, BSA office, can be misleading. How many it’s difficult to question the accuracy of youth are double counted when they are the material. However, consider that any registered as both Boy Scouts and Venture organization, be it business or nonprofit, Scouts, which is possible? Do memberpresents itself in the best possible light on ship statistics account for the presence of its Web site. Therefore, it’s not surprising fraud by a few untrustworthy professionthere is only passing reference to the high- als, who have, in the past, registered fictiprofile discrimination claims that have tious troops? This information will not be been made against the organization. (Note: reported by the BSA on its Web site, and is There is a separate Wiki article called “Boy therefore lost in the Wikipedia article. One strength, however, in terms of usScouts of America membership controver- One of the other critiques of Wikipedia is the presence of multiple authors for any given article, leading to questions of writing style cohesiveness, among other concerns. 18 Quill DECEMBER 2008
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.