Re: [ActiveDir] OT: wikis

[Matt Hargraves]

What's funny is that actual encyclopedias have almost the same level of accuracy as Wikipedia on any particular subject.  Part of that is the fact that they're always 1-3+ years out of date when they are published and the other part is that many 'facts' are actually just theories and there are commonly conflicting theories or theories that have been around for 10+ years are assumed correct because the research that proved it wrong hadn't been made widely available to those who were part of the writing of the encyclopedia (or they don't trust the new evidence).

Either way, you should try and find multiple sources of information for any subject that you're not familiar with.

On 10/5/06, Ramon Linan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Right, and remember there is not absolute truth!! :)

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] On Behalf Of Greg Nims
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 11:49 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: [ActiveDir] OT: wikis


> It's funny how we quote wikis as definitive sources of information,
> when they can be edited by anyone and everyone :)
>
> Who vets the edits and how much does that person know about the
> subject matter??

Anyone can edit, which is why they are generally correct.  When 100,000
people view a record, and 2 people want to change it to be incorrect,
999,998 will want to correct it.

I wouldn't use a wiki as a great historical or technical source.  But
for encyclopedia entries, which give a good summation of a subject, they
are great.


List info   : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
List info   : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx