Fwd: Re: Wilkipedia troubles

[Susanne Moore <SMoore@scu.edu>]

>>> Susanne Moore 12/8/2005 8:23 AM >>>
My two cents on Wikipedia. 

I very much enjoy using it, as I would any encyclopedia. But it does need to 
have some authority citation and if the author of the article wants to remain 
anonymous, there is always the option of a pseudonym.

Sue Moore
Santa Clara, CA


>>> Dora Smith <villandra@austin.rr.com> 12/7/2005 2:52 PM >>>
I saw that news story and do not understand it.

If someone finds something inaccurate on Wikipedia, why don't they fix it 
instead of complaining about it?  Or atleast add a note about it.

Honestly, good stuff comes from Wikipedia's approach!   Usually knowledge 
that can't easily be found elsewhere.   And sometimes useful "commentary" 
like the photo of the new pope the day he was chosen.   It was a photo of 
Palpatine from Star Wars.   And it was a perfect match.

Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
villandra@austin.rr.com 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Phil Bigelow" <bigelowp@juno.com>
To: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 1:27 PM
Subject: Wilkipedia troubles


>
> This story has relevence to DML because a lot of info on dinosaurs is
> found in this on0line encyclopedia.  In the long run, the flare-up may be
> all for the best, because they may tighten up the rules on how
> information is submitted to the site.
>
> <pb>
> --
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2005-12-06-wikipedia-truth_x 
> .htm
>
> "It's online, but is it true?
> ---------------------------------------------
> A high-profile incident last week involving John Siegenthaler is making
> some
> people rethink their faith in the type of anonymous collaborative
> information
> gathering that online encyclopedia Wikipedia relies on and is reminding
> them
> that just because something looks authoritative, doesn't mean it is."
>
>
>
>
> 




This message scanned for viruses and SPAM by GWGuardian at SCU (MGW1)