Sounds a bit like the Brittanica! Tim . . . On 18/01/07, nunh.huh@mac.com nunh.huh@mac.com wrote:
what do we do when mostly we're right, we're occasionally
laughably (or harmfully?) wrong
Well, when the reporter calls, it might be good to follow-up "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" with "and there are no sources which are completely reliable", and point them towards our http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_premature_obituaries
"Like the print media, Wikipedia is a *pretty good* source, but it's not of such reliability that you can just accept whatever you see there without thinking for yourself." How's that?
- d.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ryzvel@3mail.com wrote:
Sounds a bit like the Brittanica! Tim . . . On 18/01/07, nunh.huh@mac.com nunh.huh@mac.com wrote:
what do we do when mostly we're right, we're occasionally
laughably (or harmfully?) wrong
Well, when the reporter calls, it might be good to follow-up "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" with "and there are no sources which are completely reliable", and point them towards our http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_premature_obituaries
"Like the print media, Wikipedia is a *pretty good* source, but it's not of such reliability that you can just accept whatever you see there without thinking for yourself." How's that?
You're asking them to think for themselves?! =-O
Ec