Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: Puddl Duk wrote:
I just now
returned from an 8 hour seminar wherein we were repeatedly
informed that free, non-governmental information on the internet is
dubious at best, and should be avoided for anything other than
commercial or general knowledge queries. Instead, the online
university database was praised (it includes a subscription to
britannica, btw ;)
Jack (Sam Spade
Get used to it. As long as we have no validation/review/vetting/rating
mechanism we will always be in various stages of dubiousness.
Yes and no, but that's gradually being worked out.
But we are a long way off from adequate in terms of proper control of articles. I came
across one edit that had been sitting in an article for a month. The article had been
edited numerous times but no-one had spotted the clanger. I happen to know a bit about the
topic and realised immediately it was a totally made up bit of vandalism.
Among stuff surviving in articles which I came across lately were
* a made up papal encyclical
* a claim that Diana Princess of Wales believed that her husband was a shape-shifting
lizard from outer space
* a non-existing Irish government department
How could any academic remind a site that allows stuff like that sit there, unchallenged
in articles for long periods of time? I recently wrote an article for an Irish newspaper
about a topic I had seen on Wikipedia. The article was fascinating but to be on the safe
side I decided to double check it. 90% was A1. But there were 4 monster errors, all added
in month ago but never checked. I hope that no kid in using that article for an essay
quoted any of the errors. For every five good articles there is a dud in WP. And within
each good article there seems to be dud facts. In a host of areas we are scarily far off
encyclopædia standard.
---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security
Centre.