On 21/08/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/21/06, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Coming from a non-chalant user point of view though, they do not realise that they can track back through the history of the page to verify things themselves. The quality control you speak of is not perfect, the author of the article was not attempting to say there was no control, just that the control is susceptible to failure due to its passive nature.
I seem to remember this person literally writing there was no quality control.
They did say that, however, I read it at least at first as the author pointing out the fact that the software allows anything, regardless of quality. The only quality control in Wikipedia is the community that keeps a track of fellow editors contributions.
I still think you were a bit too extreme in your comments. The majority of the article was quite well done IMO.
Peter Ansell