I will often start with Wikipedia to get a grounding in terminology to
be used for other searches, and to check out their outside links.
On Feb 11, 2009, at 6:57 PM, mike wrote:
Ah a rare time I agree with Tom. More problems in that many school
endorse
the use of wikipedia for historical references etc. Frightening. The
greater degree of lack of import means the greater chance I'll go to
wiki to
read about it.
Mike
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Tom Piwowar <t...@tjpa.com> wrote:
So the circle was closed: Wikipedia states a false fact, a
reputable media outlet copies the false fact, and this outlet is
then
used as the source to prove the false fact to Wikipedia.
Any media that uses Wikipedia for its fact checking is not
"reputable." I
would call it "lazy" media. Too lazy to contact the Minister's
office to
get the correct information.
This is particularly interesting in light of this week's Time
magazine
cover story about "How to Save Your Newspaper"
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1877191,00.html
"Time" tries to distinguish its brand of "reputable media" from the
rest
of the internet rabble to make the case that we ought to be paying
for
their Web content.
Of course, if they get their facts from the Wikipedia, their content
should be covered by copyleft and they can not legally charge for
it. Ha,
ha, ha!
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
