Wikipedia U

The book is praised by some readers for being insightful, informative, and well-written. It offers a deeper understanding of how online collaborative platforms operate, including key concepts such as "No Original Research" and "Neutral Point of View." Readers found it valuable for raising important issues concerning authority, cooperation, and the future of research, making it a quick read that helps clarify the role of such platforms as starting points for inquiry rather than definitive sources. One reviewer also noted a good summary of specific academic work and a useful section at the end for group projects.

However, several reviewers found significant drawbacks. A common criticism was the book's organizational structure, which was perceived as a "mishmash" of entertaining stories and abstract discussions. Some felt that organizing the book around Wikipedia did a disservice to its broader exploration of authority, leading to theoretical discussions that lacked concrete information and numerous digressions into unrelated historical topics. Critics also pointed to a plodding treatment of the subject, unclear abstract points, and academic errors, including illogical conclusions and the un-cited injection of the author's political views. One reviewer was particularly put off by the author's repetitive focus on the limitations of cooperative projects, finding it a false dichotomy.

Overall, the book presents a mixed bag. While it successfully introduces important discussions about knowledge, authority, and the digital age, its execution is hampered by organizational issues and perceived academic shortcomings. It may appeal to readers interested in the theoretical underpinnings of online information platforms like Wikipedia and the evolving nature of authority in the digital age, especially those looking for a starting point to consider these complex issues. However, readers seeking a highly structured, deeply scholarly, or consistently entertaining analysis might find it falls short of expectations, particularly if they are sensitive to digressions or unsubstantiated academic claims.