RE: [Junk released by Allow List] Re: Wikipedia entry on XyWrite

[Brian.Henderson@xxxxxxxx]

Probably the one big plus that Wikipedia, specifically, has going for it
is the (from what I understand) massive army of compulsive/obsessive
volunteer editors that constantly monitor the software which issue
notifications about article modifications. They seem to be quite
dedicated to thwarting error, fraud, and the shenanigans of the (also
massive) army of cultural vandals.

As long as studies continue to show that Wikipedia is maintaining its
more than adequate level of accuracy, I don't have too many qualms about
using it (with my nose out for "bad smells", of course).

-BrianH.


-----Original Message-----
From: Patricia M. Godfrey

Yes. As someone who worked for 17 years on _real_ encyclopedias,
and did several projects for serious scholarly and reference
publishers, I have very mixed feelings about the whole Wiki
project. On the one hand, as the holder of certain very unpopular
and "out-of-the-mainstream" convictions, I quite approve of
challenging the received opinion; on the other hand, I have very
low tolerance for uninformed and irrational balderdash.

The problem is how to distinguish between views that may be (n
one's own opinion) erroneous, but are still reasonable, and those
that are not. Especially when there are no longer, it would
appear, any bedrock convictions (e.g., the validity of sense
perception, the principles of contradiction and identity) that
are agreed upon by all.
--
Patricia M. Godfrey
priscamg@xxxxxxxx