Wikipedia

Amazing place, Prof. Brilliant idea. I can't get Tannin away from it. Lucky for me that I get to decide what to do with the computer some of the time, otherwise I'd never get to hang out here anymore.

Besidez, the Wiki people are not very friendly. I mean to say, it'z a pretty poor thing when people don't underztand about remapped keyboardz and minor family dizagreementz over a banana or two.
 
I like this idea of peer-reviewing and correcting the information on vast online encyclopedias.
However since there is no über-editor, better be careful on taking for granted what you see written...
 
I believe that if you take enough monkeys and place them in front of typewriters then eventually a new great piece of literature will be created. I am also a believer in the idea that quantity is a quality all in itself.

However, I'm not holding my breath for these endevors. The amount of myth and mis-information that can be spread by average people writing an encyclopedia is staggering.
 
On the other hand, the Oxford English Dictionary relies on ordinary people to spot first-uses and derivations of words.

A subject-matter expert is still an ordinary person as well. I imagine that any one of us could write a reasonable page about storage performance, for example. When I visited, I went to a "random" page, and read about inline engines. This may be a bit of a jump, but I have to think that someone who cares enough to write seven paragraphs about inline engines probably knows quite a lot about them.
 
However the openness of the whole project helps for its own evolution. It's thanks to its editing and counter-editing that the information included will become by time more and more accurate.

The most problematic themes are the historical ones. For example, imagine the Iraqi-US conflict... according to each point of view there is a difference stance.

I think that contibutions in the future should be Profile-based only, to avoid troll activities and garbage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top