On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 14:42:14 PM -0400, David B Teague wrote: >> Only trolls and fan-boys have the low standards to cite Wikipedia. >> So just don't waste time on it. > > What you say is just not true. You expose your bias against and > utter ignorance of Wikipedia. There has been considerable research > that shows Wikipedia is as good in absolute terms as the Britanica.
I fully agree with the "just don't waste time on editing any Wikipedia page". There has also been interesting feedback on the quality of that "considerable research": http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/02/community_and_h.php http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/ Wikipedia is an excellent resource to have an idea of the general nature of a subject. And it's doing a wonderful job of preserving minor languages. But quoting as proof of my assertions a page that, by the time somebody reads what I wrote and follows the link, may contain the opposite of what *I* found in it is, or considering as only source (which is not what you, David, said, I know it) a website whose content, by *architecture*, is decided by those who have more *time* to shape it, is anything but smart. That's where the real damage is. Not in Wikipedia, but in linking to Wikipedia, because it also has bad effects on quality of Internet searches. Cfr http://solari.com/blog/?p=3059 Marco Fioretti Digital Rights writings -> http://mfioretti.com -- Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how software is used *around* you: http://digifreedom.net/node/84 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
