RE: Wikipedians wanted [was Re: All caps for UNIX (for no good reason)]

Subject: RE: Wikipedians wanted [was Re: All caps for UNIX (for no good reason)]
From: "Nuckols, Kenneth M" <Kenneth -dot- Nuckols -at- mybrighthouse -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:31:46 -0400


John Cornellier wrote

>
> I'd encourage anyone who finds mistakes in Wikipedia to create a free
> account and type in a better version. David seems to have done some
good
> research here, it'd be a pity to let it languish in email-archive
space.
>
> J Cornellier
> Part-time Wikepedian
>
> David Neeley wrote:
>
> >For once, Wikipedia seems mistaken.
> >

Maybe I'm just being a curmudgeonly stick in the mud, but honestly I've
never quite trusted anything I read on Wikipedia, precisely _because_
any idiot that can make an online account can add, change, or edit
whatever useless drivel they want in any entry. I've used Wikipedia to
look up general terms, technologies, and sometimes even specific items,
but I never rely on it solely--I always go and double- or triple-check
its information against a more "authoritative" or "official" source.

Having said that, I've often wondered how Wikipedia compares to other
online sources of information. Its model certainly lends itself to being
more constantly updated than most any other source--with millions of
"editors" and "proofers" and "authors" accessing the site globally on a
daily basis, chances are it gets updated before almost any other source.

For those that use Wikipedia, how reliable and up-to-date do you find it
to be? Is it the first place you go to check for a term or item that is
new to you? Do you double-check information you find on Wikipedia to
make sure that whoever wrote the entry really knows what he/she is
talking about? Or do you use Wikipedia to double-check information found
on some "official" or "authoritative" source to be sure that the
authority knows what they're talking about?

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, purge it and do not disseminate or copy it.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now Shipping -- WebWorks ePublisher Pro for Word! Easily create online
Help. And online anything else. Redesigned interface with a new
project-based workflow. Try it today! http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l

Doc-To-Help 2005 converts RoboHelp files with one click. Author with Word or any HTML editor. Visit our site to see a conversion demo movie and learn more. http://www.componentone.com/TECHWRL/DocToHelp2005

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.



Follow-Ups:

Previous by Author: RE: Getting organized -- what's your method?
Next by Author: RE: User Manual par excellance
Previous by Thread: Re: Getting organized -- what's your method?
Next by Thread: Re: Wikipedians wanted [was Re: All caps for UNIX (for no good reason)]


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads