TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Point well taken. Since I only use it to check out an occasional technical
question, or to get some quick demographics one various locations in the US.
I have had no use for PETA and most animal rights organizations since they
attacked dog mushers. I lived in Alaska at the time and was a recreational
dog musher. I knew that their accusations that dog mushing was cruel was BS.
(The recent story about 100 sled dogs killed in western Canada was not the
result of the musher, it was the big business that was trying to cash in on
the sport that killed them.)
However, I have to say that most of the information I've checked out had
citations and was accurate. So, I guess Wikipedia is just like some
technical writing. Some of it is good. Some of it isn't worth the effort it
took to type the letters.
Al
-----Original Message-----
From: techwr-l-bounces+al -dot- geist=geistassociates -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
[mailto:techwr-l-bounces+al -dot- geist=geistassociates -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com] On
Behalf Of Lauren
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 6:15 PM
Cc: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Subject: Re: WIKIPEDIA
On 2/10/2011 2:47 PM, Al Geist wrote:
> However, it is a great information transfer medium.
It is a good resource for finding other information (when citations are
provided), but it is not a good resource for relying on information.
> "Wikipedia lacks credibility because anyone can edit it regardless of
> whether they have qualifications."
>
> Several years ago that may have been true, but Wikipedia is now moderated.
> You have to be approved before you can make edits to existing material
> and nothing gets posted without going through some form of checking.
> This was in response to political hacking a few years back where
> political resumes were embellished beyond belief, or hacked to the
> point of libel. Wikipedia changed the rules because it's credibility was
at stake.
There is only *some* moderation on Wikipedia. I have contributed to content
to the pages of animal rights corporations when the content available was
not true. Animal rights corporations like PeTA, HSUS, and ASPCA do not
support animal welfare, in fact they typically oppose animal ownership, use,
and control. Corporations like the Humane Society of the United States
(HSUS), provide content for themselves to represent themselves has having
animal welfare interests when their interests are primarily lobbying and
marketing.
For example HSUS has collected donations for work in Haiti, Hurricane
Katrina, and Michael Vick's dogs, but they only imported two dogs from Haiti
that were not owned by their associates, they abandoned dogs from Hurricane
Katrina by leaving them in crates, and they killed Michael Vick's dogs,
including puppies born after their mothers were rescued.
When people post the truth about corporations like HSUS, such as the current
IRS investigation against HSUS for its tax fraud and some RICO issues, then
those posts are deleted by the animal rights activists who maintain the
animal rights propaganda pages.
We would have to be absolutely foolish to believe that Wikipedia is held to
the same scrutiny as a printed and published encyclopedia. Political
lobbyists, like animal rights corporations, can freely post their propaganda
on Wikipedia, even when a weighing of the facts fails to support the animal
rights agenda.
Create and publish documentation through multiple channels with Doc-To-Help.
Choose your authoring formats and get any output you may need. Try
Doc-To-Help, now with MS SharePoint integration, free for 30-days. http://www.doctohelp.com
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-
