That's a really good point, Anders. I agree 100%. Anthony Cole <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole>
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:37 AM, Anders Wennersten <[email protected]> wrote: > Back in 1989-90 I was working in a telecom company. We then said mobile > phones can never really challange fixed phone as it is not at all reliable > compared with fixed phone and will never be of the same quality. We then > learnt > "reliable enough for the purpose it it used for" as an explanation for the > explosive use of mobiles for almost all usages > > I use to to say Wikipedia consists of a number, say 1000, encyclopedias on > different subject areas. > > And I would say for something like 80% of these wp is reliable enough and > in many cases outstanding compared to "competitors". In many subject areas > there does not even exist an alternative. > > But in some areas, say 20% of total there exist good alternatives if we > look at content, and in some cases (like health) I see the demand for > reliability and quality so high that perhaps wp can not be seen as the best > alternative. (and the "Hot line" still rely on the fixed phone...) > > I am proud to (again) be part of a movement that "wins" the world by > producing "products" that are being reliable enough for its purpose at the > same time being extremely easy to access and useful > > Anders > > > > > > Anthony Cole skrev den 2015-04-07 19:16: > >> It's an encyclopedia, Marc. The world's encyclopedia. People should be >> able >> to trust it. You and the rest of the WMF need to get that through your >> heads or you'll wake up one morning soon and find Wikipedia on page 2 of >> Google and you out of a job. This is the most important issue facing >> Wikipedia. Denial isn't helping. >> >> Anthony Cole <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Marc A. Pelletier <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> On 15-04-07 12:51 PM, Anthony Cole wrote: >>> >>>> Wikipedia >>>> should not be trusted for anything - least of all health matters . >>>> >>> That's a perfectly true, but perfectly vacuous assertion. Wikipedia >>> should be trusted exactly as much as any other single source may be >>> trusted, for exactly the same reason. Striving to find the most >>> reliable sources is fraught with pitfalls whether you attempt do to it >>> yourself or rely on the collective efforts of Wikipedia editors to do so. >>> >>> Wikipedia is a giant collection of summaries and overview of topics, and >>> it never pretendend to be anything else. If you *end* your reasearch >>> there for anything of importance, then you commit as sin no graver (nor >>> lighter) than picking any other random book on the topic and ending your >>> research there. >>> >>> -- Marc >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>> [email protected] >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> [email protected] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
