Re: Is there a genealogy Wiki anywhere?

In article <eqo4245vdp7vkv7s7e58hta50m8apco5n1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Wed, 7 May 2008 22:03:37 +0100, "Don Moody" <dpmoody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> 
>>
>>"Daniel Morgan" <daniel.f.morgan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>>news:b247a38a-e529-4848-a736-e5371a397142@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> In 2005, the journal Nature got 42 expert reviewers to compare 
>>> science
>>> articles in Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica for accuracy.  To
>>> quote from their original writeup, "the difference in accuracy was 
>>> not
>>> particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained
>>> around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three."
>>>
>>> Britannica disputed the Nature study.  Nature rebutted their 
>>> rebuttal
>>> and stood by their original findings.  See Editorial, Nature 440, 
>>> 582
>>> (30 March 2006)
>>
>>Emcyclo[edia Britannica has been known for decades not to be a 
>>standard of accuracy. Yet again it is a product where commercial 
>>considerations outweigh metioculous accuracy. A more meaningful 
>>experiment would be to compare Wiki or EB or both on, say, chemistry 
>>with, say, the Journal of the Royal Society of Chemistry. Or in any 
>>subject compare them with the leading professional, refereed, journal 
>>of record in that subject. That is the journal which places accuracy 
>>before commercial considerations.
> 
> And many writers of articles in refereed journals have been found to be
in the
> pay of commercial enterprises and playing the tune that the piper has
paid
> for. 

  Didn't you see the articles about the firms which were paying people
to write complimentary wikipedia articles?

-- 
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