Robert Melson wrote:
>>Michael Reich wrote:
>>
>>>>I've only been following this rather loosely. I seldom use
>>>>Wikipedia and hadn't thought to use it for genealogical research
>>>>(since there are so many good search sites I typically use) -- but,
>>>>from what I'm seeing, it is considered 'okay' to use wikipedia (with
>>>>appropriate caveats) but not required :-D . The internet is just
>>>>one big index, for the most part anyway, so good research practices
>>>>would then lead you to find the original or other source/s to
>>>>substantiate data found on the internet. Wouldn't you use Wikipedia
>>>>the same way?
>>>>
>>>>As I said, I have not followed this conversation closely, so if I am
>>>>off base, sorry.
>>>>
>>>>JoAnn <ka7suz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>
>>>Don't apologize. Most of this "discussion" has consisted of one
>>>group insisting that Wikipedia is essentially akin to gossip and
>>
>>That seems to me to be an over-simplification of one side of the
>>discussion. Far's I could see, all one side was asserting was that
>>Wikipedia isn't as solid as a rock and stating their/our reasons.
>>If someone is going to say sand is a reliable footing, everyone else
>>owes it to the world to dispute that statement.
>>
>>And most of us have heard the Anyone/everyone/someone/no one
>>story. So EVERYONE sees to it that it gets said.
>>
>>
>>>another group insisting it is as solid as a rock. As you say, the
>>>truth is somewhere in between. Hopefully, this thread will go away
>>>soon.
>>
>>Prolly shouldn't've said that last sentence out-loud in public.
>>What's our record, Dr B?
>>
>>[ This one hasn't even made it to "epic pro****tions" yet. ;)
>> - Mod ]
>>
>>Cheryl Singhals <singhals@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Anybody give any thought to the idea that wikipedia's "dynamic"
> character is very much akin to the yearbooks published by the
> encyclopedia folks? Britannica publishes the Nth edition, new,
> revised, up-to-date; errors are found, new research is conducted,
> articles are added, dropped or revised and, LO!, a yearbook appears
> incor****ating all that. What, might I ask, is the difference
> between THAT and wikipedia's continually being updated, revised,
> corrected, added to?
Using your Britannica example, if I cite Nth ed, Vol 13, pg 4890,
publi****ng a yearbook won't change what it says on pg 4890 of Vol
13. If I then want to cite what's in the yearbook, that's Nth Ed,
2007 Supplement, pg 345.
Wikipedia, OTOH, changes the original entry, so that what was once
there isn't anymore and what's there now wasn't when I used it to
sup****t my hypothesis.
> The one aspect of wikipedia that I wonder about is the credentials
> of the contributors. Are they at least equivalent to those of the
> encyclopedists?
I recognize some of them, others I know recognized others; they are,
at the least, known favorably in their respective fields. FWIW
Cheryl
singhals <singhals@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
|
