I won't use WikiPedia as a source anymore because I've been burned too many times. The writers tell you what they want to tell you, which is often far from comprehensive. It's a very biased, often inaccurate, source. It's worth the extra five minutes to do the real research.
However, wikis as a concept shouldn't be confused with Wikipedia. I like wikis in small settings like companies where someone can fix or weed out the inaccurate. As someone else here said, they're conversational sources of information. People document informal best practices through them, and you should consider them like a half-drunk SME: they'll give you an answer that's mostly complete in a shorthand of their own. --- Whites <whitefamily at mac.com> wrote: > I've been asked before what I thought about wikis in > a software > documentation environment. I suspect that the only > reason > Anarchipedia works at all is because there exists a > large population > of educated types who are willing to contribute and > who are able to > do so because they are writing their entries on > someone else's > nickel. Probably university souls who would > otherwise be preparing > lectures or grading some of the few papers that > students still claim > to write. Or maybe they are just avoiding their > tedious chores. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. http://games.yahoo.com/games/front