Tim Deaton wrote: > M. Fioretti wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 13:16:52 PM -0400, Web Kracked wrote: >> >> >>> I have a question? >>> Why not get some really smart people together on ODF, >>> OpenOffice.org, and other open source software, technologies, and >>> concepts, AND create a Wikipedia "style" of site but with the >>> correct info. ALSO only allow accredited people do the edits. >>> >> >> It already exists, it's www.opendocumentfellowship.com >> >> >>> THEN link this site to the Wikipedia pages that have the wrong info. >>> Make the links sound like if you go here you get the best info >>> on the topic. >>> >> >> and what would prevent other wikipedia "users" to cancel that link or >> make it sound bad one second after one leaves Wikipedia to do >> something more productive? >> >> This isn't speculation. This very same discussion already happened >> 2/3 years ago on the opendocument fellowship mailing list. It's >> useless to waste time on Wikipedia. >> >> Marco >> > It may be "useless" if your only market is techies. But it IS > ADVERTISING. And that "99% of low-end" folks that was mentioned > earlier includes folks like my neighbors and former bosses who don't > really comprehend that Wikipedia isn't that trustworthy. > > Remember that OO's biggest market isn't techies. It is people who > can't afford to fork out hundreds of dollars for MS Office. Those > folks will trust what they see in Wikipedia, so if OO cares about its > image, it needs to monitor the thing. > > Tim D
I think what a lot of people don't catch onto, or forget, is that you ALWAYS need to verify and clarify ANYTHING you find on the internet if the info is important to you. If it's important information to you, then find verification of those fact elsewhere. NEVER trust just the original site's references as they are also going to be biased in the same direction. It takes all kinds to ... . FWIW IMO, wikipedia is a great resource for many things. But, it makes no secret about its contents coming from just anyone that wants to participate, almost like a newsgroup. It is not an authoratative resource and doesn't pretend to be. I've used it often in the past and for the most part my own areas of interest, I've found it helpful overall, but I still clarify/verify what I get there either by my own empirical methods or via some other reputable source I respect. IMO I've found wikipedia most useful for tough searches I do. YOu'll often come up with plenty of links and search terms there that will assist a great deal in research. HTH, Twayne` --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
