Re: Is there a genealogy Wiki anywhere?

In article
<29cbd97f-57ab-493b-907a-433ddb5f9bef@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
atraymond-monarchies@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> Done
> 
> My understanding on the way you think is that I bet your thoughts for
> example on Wikepedia is based on a misconception. You need to refer to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About
to get a little
> understanding of it's limitations and authenticity.
> 
> There is nothing to indicate that individuals who write articles for
> Wikepedia are not experts on their own field. 

  While it certainly isn't illegal for an expert to write on Wikipedia,
that seems far from sufficient reason to assume that the article _is_
written by an expert.  It's even less likely if one starts reading 
change history logs in areas where you know who the experts are, and
discover that their expertise is considered a negative attribute at
Wikipedia.  A practical matter, not a requirement of the process.
There are always far more sub-experts and non-experts than there are
experts, so my 2p are bet that a similar majority of the content is
written by the sub- and non-experts, not to mention the cranks and 
loons.  

> I for one use Wikepedia
> as a secondary useful source for a particular area of personal
> interest, I don't accept Wikepedia as being 100% correct and check
> other sources. However whenever I find an error in Wikepedia I'm able
> to correct it immediately, any amendments are trackable and can be
> undone if need be. For my own particular field of interest I have only
> found a small number of errors in alarge number of Wikepedia articles.
> 
> The beauty of Wikepedia is that it can be changed in the blink of an
> eye, I would guess far quicker than if it was left to your experts to
> dither and dally on deciding whether to accept the changes if they
> were in charge of their own on-line encyclopaedia.

  The beauty is also the bane.  Something that is correct can be changed
in that same blink of an eye to something that is incorrect.  The
current status of any given article is therefore rather a dicey
proposition.

> And by the way it is free.

  And worth what you pay for it.

[trim]

-- 
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/
Science faqs and amateur
activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too
much 
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than
they 
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New
Sciences