lists at l8r.net
Fri Mar 30 13:58:46 EDT 2007
Respond to this then, Bill, as a starter.
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:43:22 -0400
Andy Civil <andycivil at gmail.com> wrote:
> All these references are trustworthy and informative:
Wikipedia?! Trustworthy?! Are you utterly, completely, and totally
I'm sorry, but I can't put it any other way. The Wikipedia is absolutely
the _least_ trustworthy encyclopedic source you could ever imagine.
For example, 12 seconds before Croombe visits the Wikipedia page you list
above, a vandal could modify the entire page with utterly false and
completely absurd data.. that would seem truthful to Croombe.
Further, there are extremely biased articles, fiefdoms of knowledge
controlled by zealots, you name it. Frankly, the Wikipedia is likely the
worst source of information you could find for anything, for
Sure, some of its articles are relatively (and I use "relatively" with
purpose!) well edited and factual. However, since one can never know what
article is correct or incorrect, any trip to the Wikipedia ultimately
results in knowledge entering your head, without even the most minor
assurances that it is correct.
Articles are peppered with urban legends, slanted paragraphs, words
slipped into strategic spots to change the flow of sentences, you name it.
The worst part of all of this, is that many people on the web take the
Wikipedia as some form of authoritative knowledge. Yes, these people also
watch the news at night, and think that reporters and televised media has
a goal to inform, rather than to shock and awe.
Well, no matter. Please, just don't call Wikipedia trustworthy, ever. At
least with an author's webpage, you have an idea of who wrote it.
It's the blathering of fools distorting the wisdom of a few... with the
false legitimacy that only the media and urban legend can create.
More information about the OCLUG