"The cost of book-production does at least provide some kind of filter on quality."

This is inexact. The cost of book production provides a filter according to marketability, not quality. Utter crud gets written and published, as long as it is believed that a sufficient number of people might buy it. Go to any bookstore or supermarket, witness the shelves full of pseudoscience gobbledygook, or of miracle cures for obesity and other problems.

Compare that to the fact that many very good books do not get published or reprinted because they will not make enough money.

Those who idolize the written word (be it in newspapers or in books) often forget that major publishing companies are every bit as commercial as Google and other commercial sites (Wikipedia is not commercial).

Bernard Marmotte, Paris, France

A lot of public library services now offer free access to Britannica, DNB and a number of other resources if you are a library member and these can be accessed anywhere - home, college etc. In defence of libraries any half decent reference library should be able to offer a number of sources of information to satisfy the quick enquiry as well as the more in depth sort.

James Tredegar, Stafford,

Just because its written in a book doesn't mean it is correct. Google has done a fantastic job of giving information to people. The people have always had to sift the information and make some decisions. It is high time the "pay per view" journals published their information free of charge, then ithey could compete with all the material in Google and other similar sources.

bob taylor, Castelnau, France

I have encountered 'Prof Brabazons' before... It's such a pity that they have to such an extend lost touch with reality. Instead of banning the most accessible means of searching for information, they would be much more useful to their students by showing them how to distinguish the between trustworthy and dodgy sources. Sad people...

Pavel, London,

I find double-sourcing is a necessity - but, then, that could be said of any research except primary. I do consult <em>Wikipedia</em>, but then try to find the same information somewhere else, and try to discern (not always possible, I'll admit) whether one source has come from the other. If there has been a direct paste, then it will be obvious. However, <em>Wiki</em> has external links, which are usually helpful.

Having instant online sources of information has certainly made looking up quick facts (if one is editing something or writing a letter) a doddle; however, if you're learning a subject, then you'll need more than an encyclopedia entry, anyway, although that may give you an overview to key onto.

Andy Armitage, Hebron, Whitland, West Wales, UK

The greatest danger to character development and critical thinking comes from the cultish nature of Wikipedia culture. This is not something that can be discovered from a cursory survey of Wikipedia cover pages but only through a careful examination of the activities that go on behind the scenes.

Jon Awbrey, Rochester Hills, Michigan

I'm a student who is aware of the pitfalls of Google or Wikipedia, and I use them as tools for which to begin my research -- to get basic information about a subject and to find links to other sources of information. I have to say that I was pretty shocked when my English instructor recently suggested we check Wikipedia for information on a short story we are reading. I chose to do what I always do, glance through Wikipedia so I have an idea what the subject is about, and then I moved on to my library's electronic resources - World Book, Britannica, etc. Not surprising, I did find incorrect information in Wikipedia. Don't always be so quick to blame the students, nor to lump us all into one category.

Student, London, England

Professor Linklater seems to have swallowed Wikipedia's assurances that the problem of sock-puppetry has been solved rather too readily. I'm sure the will is there but it will take a lot more effort to defeat the mischief-makers.

There's also no need to make that 20 minute trip to the library or reach for the credit card. Your local library will almost certainly have given you free access to DNB and Britannica (and lots more) through thei website.

Chris Booty, Wickford, UK / Essex

I suppose this take isn't surprising, given how lazy journalists have gotten nowadays. You also don't have to "work" or "trawl" for it - you can call your librarian. But then again, god forbid you go so far as to get information and data that has actually been reviewed and verified.

A Librarian, chattanooga, TN

as a librarian, i see all types of research done-- there are those who are really interested in learning and those who just want present 'something' to pass --- is it really different from 40, 60 or even 100 years ago with students?
people rise to the level that is expected of them and no more--so we need to raise expectations....

bobbie, fort lauderdale, florida/ usa

I agree that blocking Google, Wikipedia, Yahoo, pick your favorite internet source is NOT the answer, because, as the author points out, there is great information out there for free. However, it is a FACT that students are not learning to question what they read - they just aren't cynical enough and therein lies the danger of the web as a resource. Veropedia is a neat idea, but information is not static - even history and the nature of the universe is changing on a regular basis - that's not the answer either... But, please, don't blame the libraries or the librarians. We're busy trying to make as many "quality" academic resources available in as easy to use a fashion as our budgets allow. We need the faculty on board to encourage students to actually consider these resources and not accept the culture of "good enough" that has grown up with the web - the culture where everyone is rewarded for waking up, rather than for providing quality input!

Larissa, Peoria/IL, United States

WIkipedia, by its charter, is not a primary source and care should be taken to teach children researching that it is simply a place to find links to sources of data rather than something to read for research data in itself

Leon Wolfeson, Oxford,

You should check what esources your library offers on line. DNB can b accessed from home for free by members of local Libraries. The service differs, from area to area for example here in Hertfordshire Groves Art is included. The case should be made for universal access to key resources. Why should some library members get access to expensive on line sources and others not? Post code lottery.

Paul, Welwyn, Hertfordshire

Do you realize that some professors in NYC ban the use of all internet sources including things such as the Britannica online? My library, exactly like the college libraries these very out of touch people work in, requires an id to access the databases and indexes of their library. That's how we are charged by the vendors. There are very few paper indexes that schools are continuing to pay for when they can get it full-text online or a better index source. I am forced to conclude that these professors-college professors-have not used online databases and indexes and seen the quality of them, the full-text access and the same encyclopedias they value so much in an online format. It is pitiful and speaks to the quality of those teaching students rather than the resources students are using.
Debbie P, New York City

Debbie Pecora, New Hyde Park, New York

Children have always been taught to use more than one source. As a librarian for 25 years and a teacher before that we have worked with students needing sources from different media. Why shouldn't internet sources be included and used as a teaching tool for critical thinking. This can begin with children doing their very first reports on animals or states or countries. No book can have the most up-to-date information anyway since information changes so quickly.

Sally Smith, Newville, United States PA

I applaud Wikipedia for providing students with background information that they need when they are starting their research. Any information, whether print or electrionic needs to be evaluated based on the source, the content and the relevance to the topic.
One thing that you didn't mention is that many students have access through the libraries at their institutions to online reference sources that would augment what they find in Wikipedia. In many cases it is not necessary for students to pay out of their own pockets to access resources such as Britannica Online or the online version of DNB.

Fran Gray
London, Ontario, Canada.

Fran Gray, London, Canada

When printed in nice thick books Encyclopedia Britannica is what 4 feet, 5 at the most. If printed in books Wikipedia would be nearly THREE MILES LONG.

There is simply no single source of knowledge as vast, as diverse, or as complete as Wikipedia. What really jerks people chains is that Wikipedia is free. If the already wealthy can't continue to make money off of something, then that something simply doesn't have worth...except, of course, to the people who aren't already wealth.

Steve, Mpls, MN, USA

Precisely. By blocking students from Google and Wikipedia they are learning nothing about critically reading and evaluating the information they find.

S.N., Minneapolis, MN

You are correct about Wikipedia being full of erroneous information. Veropedia (veropedia.com) is trying to fix that by correcting, sourcing and making wikipedia articles static. Not alot of articles yet, but it's a beginning. Veropedia will be something that teachers can use.

Lulu, Chicago, Illinois

Students have not changed because of Google. What we expect of them to pass a course has changed. Since funding is tied to retention rates, failure for not performing, on a wide scale, is not possible. Don't pick on Google or Wikipedia. They're not to blame.

James B., Toronto, Canada

As a librarian of 17 years and a Google user, I would agree that Google should not be banned. What I feel would be much better is to teach all users how to evaluate information from wherever they get it. I do think students should not rely on the Internet for all their research, but I do feel there is much useful information available. I would agree with a ban of Wikipedia as there are many other online resources that are much better and credible. Instead of competing with Google let's become partners by showing users how to search and use Google more effectively.

Janice Poston, Louisville,

I'm a freelance writer and I find Wikipedia extremely useful as a starting point, and sometimes more than that. It does contain the occasional mistake but so too do other reference books and if you know about the subject, you can always go into the Wikipedia article and correct it. Most good Wikipedia articles also give extensive footnotes and citations, so it's easy enough to follow them up or confirm sourcing of incormation. To my mind Wikipedia is a rather remarkable resource and one that demonstrates the positive aspect of the internet: it's grass roots, constantly growing, and not linked to some massive advertising programme.

Ann Kramer, Hastings, United Kingdom

You can have the best of both worlds. My local authority has subscriptions to Britannica, DND, OED and several hundred other reference books. Anyone with a library card can access these on the Internet through the library website on any computer with internet access, not just computers in the library. So it is not necessary to make a journey to the nearest library to compare information gleaned from reference "books" and "Googling"s. My library card gives me access to more reference books on the Internet than I have ever seen on the shelves in any library.

Most library authorities offer a similar service.

Jan Bedford, Maidstone, UK

Wikipedia is a wonderful entry point on most subjects. However, proper academic study (as is presumably required on any degree course) would of course require further reading and analysis. Would you really expect a student to complete an honours dissertation based entirely on internet-gleaned information?

Thomas, London,

Regarding the blunting of curiosity, there are two points here. Firstly, these tools need to be harnessed, and being able to sift though the rubbish is a step in this process (I also have a bit of a feeling that the oft mentioned lies and innaccuracies found on line, due to anyone's ability to contribute, is greatly exaggerated, as most people, quite frankly, can't be bothered).

Secondly, I don't feel that these technologies have blunted my curiosity. Quite the oppsite in fact, it has allowed me to have a much broader understanding of many issues due to the eease with which I can inform myself. Also, we should not underestimate the effect that economic barriers to entry can have on one's curiosity. The example of ITunesU, where lectures and discussions appear from American and Canadian universities online and can be downloaded as podcasts, has afforded to me the opportunity to learn from some of the best thinkers of our time.

It's really all about harnessing the technology at hand.

Remy, Pully, Switzerland

The University of Brighton (ho,ho!) was Brighton Poly, and should have remained so.

Magnus Linklater is quite right. I have learned so much about the poet John Clare from the internet, ten times as much as a trip to even my biggest local library could have provided. From the many googled pages on his works I have been able to select facts and ideas about the poet, just as I would have done with a library book or hefty encyclopedia in front of me, but without the travel, the reserving, the carrying about.

Professor Brabazon, in her elitist approach, mirrors her forefather who designed the Bristol Brabazon airliner for rich travellers. Only one prototype was built. It was a commercial failure. Let’s hope the professor’s injunctions receive a similar cold shoulder.

Allan, Skipton, UK

The difficulty is that wikipedia and similar requires leaders in the fields to contribute and there is no incentive so to do. Discussions with colleagues indicate that there is a marked disparity between the sciences (where this is done) and the arts (where it is not). In fact many articles on the arts are more or less unaltered from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica (try the article on Roman law for an example), where there may have been major changes in the fields.

The real problem is the thinking skills though: a student of mine cited several websites rather than the recommended reading. As the course had just started, he was unable to discern that the websites recycled each other's information, were always far too oversimplifed and often plain wrong. To bar access to google and wikipedia at the start of a course (as Prof Brabazon suggests) enables one to give students a good grounding in understanding material before leaving them to sift good from bad online.

John Scott, London,

Well Prof Brabazon (she of many letters behind her name as her entry on University of Brighton shows) has already got her Wikipedia entry updated with reference to her article on 13 January! Guess this kind of timeliness has no value to her!

Dipl.Ing. Ph.D., Staines, UK

Please note that you do not necessarily *have* to pay a subscription to gain access to the Oxford DNB. If you have your library card, simply enter the number into the relevant field and you have access to the whole dictionary from wherever you may be sitting at the computer.

As regards the "equality of information to everyone", while internet information is equally available, it is by no means equally good. For those who know enough to choose a reliable source, fine: but the less-skilled googler has no objective standard of accuracy to help with selection from thousands of search results.

I am reminded of a conference speaker who said the WWW is both the world's best and worst library: immense size, complete lack of text control. The cost of book-production does at least provide some kind of filter on quality.

Jane Wickenden, Wincanton, England

I more or less agree with Linklater's main points, and not only am I a retired bookseller, but also old enough to have been reared solely on ink and paper information sources. I still find browsing through a print reference just as stimulating and tangent-inducing as browsing Wiki or Google results, if not more so. In real life, I utilize both kinds of information sources - print and online as needed.

AntonyM, Mendocino, CA USA

Peer-reviewed in anything other than the hardest of sciences should really be paradigm-reviewed instead. Give me wikipedia any day. The ability to go off at tangents and come across things you have never heard of is fantastic.
Anyway, what or where is the University of Brighton? It isn't in Wikipedia.

J Quigley, France,