Jim Elbrecht wrote:
> singhals <singhals@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Robert Melson wrote:
>
> - -snip-
>
> > > 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
>
> Ah, no. The only requirement to contribute is to register.
I misunderstood the question then. I thought it referred to the
referees?
> From
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About
> "With rare exceptions, articles can be edited by anyone with access
> to the Internet"
>
> One of the 'rare exceptions' was after a fake-newscaster [not sure
> where that hyphen belongs] suggested to his audience that they could
> save the elephants by editing the Wikipedia entry to reflect a
> growing population. His theory was that ' Everything on Wikipedia
> is true' - so if it was there, the elephants would be saved. I
> don't think Wikipedia was amused.
> [story here-
> http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-6100754-7.html
]
>
> I'm in the 'Wikipedia is interesting, handy and often informative. .
> but if I saw a Wikipedia citation I wouldn't think the author tried
> very hard to research the subject' camp.
Got an e-mail today, cited Snopes.com to reassure me of the accuracy
of the statement ... except Snopes.com doesn't _exactly_ agree with
their interpretation of the facts. When I queried the sender, he
assured me that he _knew_ Snopes wasn't convinced but citing it was
convincing and not that many folks would bother checking!!
Cheryl
singhals <singhals@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
|
