Re: Wikipedians wanted

Subject: Re: Wikipedians wanted
From: John Cornellier <jcornellier -at- abingdon -dot- oilfield -dot- slb -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 08:01:05 +0100


Nuckols, Kenneth M wrote:

>>Maybe I'm just being a curmudgeonly stick in the mud,

Hello. Well, the first step to rehabilitation is admitting it....!

>> 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

I think that's a very pessimistic way of looking at it. Why not say "it must be great because it's tapping into the expertise of millions of people".

In my experience, there are more good people out there than idiots.

<snippage>

>>For those that use Wikipedia, how reliable and up-to-date do you find it
>>to be?

The proof is in the pudding, e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_Hurricane_Katrina_on_New_Orleans

or, to remain on topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framemaker

It's mostly very good. I'd challenge anybody to find a topic that doesn't have something sensible written. Look up your home town, your favourite root vegetable, or just some random topic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random

Occasionally the server is a bit slow or gets slashdotted.

>>Is it the first place you go to check for a term or item that is
>>new to you?

Yep. Or Google, which often takes you there anyway.

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?

No, loads of other people do that. Depends how critical the information is, of course.

I've been editing in there for some time, and there is a culture where different people have different roles. Me, I like to add new information, and I like to edit for structure. Other people, they never add anything new, they have alerts set up so that when something new goes in (in a topic they like) they go and proofread / fact-check it. Other people, all they do is go around creating links in topics. Others like spellchecking and grammar. Others like to tweak the layout. It's good because everyone does what they're good at.

It's a very good (and proven) model for building technical documentation.

John Cornellier


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

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.



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

Previous by Author: Re: User Manual par excellance
Next by Author: Generate XSD from XML - how?
Previous by Thread: RE: Wikipedians wanted [was Re: All caps for UNIX (for no good reason)]
Next by Thread: User Manual par excellance


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


Sponsored Ads