Gentle Spiders, I think a discussion of the relative merits and drawbacks of Wikipedia doesn't really belong on this list, except as it relates to lace information. The fact that people do use it as a resource, appropriately or not, argues for making the information in it the best we can--and the fact that it is open makes that possible. We can't correct errors in, say, Mrs. Bury Palliser's work, but any of us who spots an error can correct it in Wikipedia. It's a way for us to educate people about lace. If we ignore Wikipedia because it contains incorrect information, we abandon the people who do consult it (and it is very popular) to misconceptions. Good Wikipedia articles, on the other hand, can give people a solid jumping-off place for further research.
To indulge in a final aside: I do agree that any college-level student who uses an encyclopedia, whether a standard print encyclopedia or Wikipedia, as a final authority, deserves poor marks. I teach my 5th grade students always to consult multiple resources to double-check information, and they are always tickled when they find inconsistencies between supposedly authoritative resources. Just promoting my subversive, "question authority" philosophy. --Julie E. in Seattle - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
