tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post6755437673341671120..comments2008-10-29T07:53:47.926ZMark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-28161558682617850182008-10-29T07:53:00.000Z2008-10-29T07:53:00.000ZThe problems with wikipedia are that (a) any fool can edit it and (b) factual corrections get 'uncorrected' editorially.<BR/><BR/>Not worth the hassle.实木复合地板http://www.simbaflooring.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-66155901908944360102008-10-28T11:19:00.000Z2008-10-28T11:19:00.000ZJim West represents Wikipedia as something that anyone can change at any time, but the one time that I corrected an entry, my correction didn't appear in the article in question until its factuality was confirmed by somebody at Wikipedia! I wonder, therefore, how many of West's complaints are based on a false understanding of Wikipedia. (I agree that it is not the sort of authority that students should use in their bibliographies, but it has the advantage of being corrigible. When a mistake appears in a printed encyclopedia, there's little that can be done to fix it.)John C. Poiriernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-27114745307671402692008-10-24T10:13:00.000+01:002008-10-24T10:13:00.000+01:00The problems with wikipedia are that (a) any fool can edit it and (b) factual corrections get 'uncorrected' editorially.<BR/><BR/>Not worth the hassle.rpghttp://network.nature.com/people/rpg/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-21912542649503682532008-10-24T04:55:00.000+01:002008-10-24T04:55:00.000+01:00The truthiness is further enhanced if Jon Pertwee or Tom Baker is the Doctor.Mike Duncanhttp://badrhetoric.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-92156389792196930642008-10-23T05:52:00.000+01:002008-10-23T05:52:00.000+01:00I agree that the fact that something is on Wikipedia doesn't necessarily make it wrong, or even suspect, and that encyclopedias are not the place for original research. On the other hand, I was at a trivia morning the other week where one of the tables disputed the answer given by the people running the event and they explained that they'd got their answer from Wikipedia. One of the disputants said "Give me half an hour and an internet connection and our answer could be on Wikipedia, too". Wikipedia is just to volatile a source to be a good one.<BR/><BR/>I don't think students should be banned from using it, but it should act as a starting point, not an ultimate authority, in the same way that any other single source of information should be checked in other references.Judy Redmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04350638846246966802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-90684255687579849972008-10-22T23:00:00.000+01:002008-10-22T23:00:00.000+01:00I can see Jim West's boot heading for your testicles!Doug Chaplinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10326403777027937887noreply@blogger.com