[Table of Contents]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ARSCLIST] Whacky-Packia outed for what it is -- Amateur Hour in Siberia

The problem with Wikipedia is not that some items are full of lots of correct information . Even if there are only a few articles with wrong information how will a person know which is right and which is lousy if you are not already expert in that field? I have looked at it a few times but have never used it for information. I just don't trust it. Jack

----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Hartov" <alexander.hartov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Whacky-Packia outed for what it is -- Amateur Hour in Siberia

Wikipedia bashing may be deserved in some corners, however, I
personally have found many instances where it is accurate, clear and
very useful.  If a few idiots sabotage it, then things are slowly
being done about reducing the occurrences.  Throwing out the whole
concept because some clown got caught lying is just as stupid as
relying on a source (wiki) that is known to have some element of
uncertainty without verification and corroboration.

I still think that the wikipedia is a worthwhile enterprise intended
to make a vast body of knowledge available for free to anyone with an
internet connection.  The problems that come with it can be fixed and
eventually will be.  In spite of anyone's saying otherwise.

For every example of bad page to be found, I am certain there is a
multitude of serious, well presented topics.  Look up Bode Plot, for
example, a page I recently referred one of my students to.  Another
example I liked was Hall Effect.  I can attest to the fact that a
large number of pages pertaining to science and engineering are 1st

Alex Hartov, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Engineering
Thayer School of Engineering
Dartmouth College HB8000
Hanover NH 03755
(603) 646 3936

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]