I'm not one of those who knock Wikipedia, but I do think (as I'm sure is the general view of TIPSters) that it should be treated with considerable caution. Here is a cautionary tale from one academic who set out to edit a Wikipedia page on the basis of his expertise on the subject:
I tried to edit the page again. Within 10 seconds I was informed that my citations to the primary documents were insufficient, as Wikipedia requires its contributors to rely on secondary sources, or, as my critic informed me, "published books." Another editor cheerfully tutored me in what this means: "Wikipedia is not 'truth,' Wikipedia is 'verifiability' of reliable sources. Hence, if most secondary sources which are taken as reliable happen to repeat a flawed account or description of something, Wikipedia will echo that." http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/ The comments on the article are also worth reading. One criticism I would make of the author of the article is that he should have raised the issue on the Discussion ("Talk") page first to explain what he wanted to change, and why. Alternatively, he could have left the original wording and added some sentences providing an alternative view of the topic. Then the fight could begin on a different footing. :-) Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=16058 or send a blank email to leave-16058-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
