Delirium wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote:
That's the lead-in to the purpose of the conference. It seems like good news to see yet another recognized authority using Wikipedia to provide definitions of the terms for the foci of its trade.
This is a great thing, because it also showcases one of our strengths: We're becoming an authoritative source for summaries of consensus opinion. A common way of doing that is to find a few authors who have made statements, like "according to Foo, spyware is 'blah'; according to Foo2, it's 'blah2'". Wikipedia sort of collects and summarizes those sorts of things for them. (For our good articles anyway. :-)
Our technical coverage has some gaps, but most of it is of sterling quality. If I want to learn WTF something I've barely heard of *actually is*, I look at Wikipedia first - a Google search tending to turn up mailing list posts (which I look to for tech support, not introductions) and Linux HOWTOs dated six years ago. I use and *recommend* Wikipedia for technical matters now.
- d.