Michael Cook wrote:
Don't forget that somebody writing an article for Britannica or any
other commercial encyclopedia may also have an axe to grind. My
impression is the articles in Wikipedia are about as accurate, and
often more complete, than those in the encyclopedias in the public
library.
Britannica is reviewed by committee, which tends to remove bias, and
cannot be edited by just any crackpot, which is how Wiki is designed to
work.
Wiki, as said before is OK for technical articles, but almost useless
for other areas. I know people whose Wikipedia biographies have been
repeatedly hacked and changed by asocials. And there are too many
incidences of historical articles being edited by, for instance,
holocaust deniers and the like, to make it reliable there.
On 1 Jul 2006, at 06:26, Carl Dershem wrote:
Wikipedia is useful for some things, and completely useless for
others. In areas where there is very little reason to monkey with
what's posted (often technical articles) it's not bad. But whenever
it comes to biography, history, and the like, there are far too many
out there with an ox to gore, an axe to grind, or a personal problem
of another kind.
cd
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/dershem/#
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
