What about using more than one source - common sense surely?
Anyway sod the NYT - the Guardian leader loves us ;)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,1661567,00.html
Caroline/Secretlondon
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Sean Barrett Sent: 08 December 2005 14:51 To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] NYT to forbid use of Wikipedia as a reference?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Anthony DiPierro stated for the record:
I don't understand why people are taking offense to this in the first place. In my opinion, *of course* the New York Times shouldn't be using Wikipedia to check information. Is someone here suggesting that they should? It seems to me like a ridiculous proposition in the first place.
Anthony
So should anybody, anywhere, be using Wikipedia for any purpose?
If so, then why are the editors at the New York Times "of course" different from those that should?
- -- Sean Barrett | Damned shame about Scrooge -- a shrewd sean@epoptic.org | businessman before this lunacy. | I'm afraid he's for Bedlam now.
_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/194 - Release Date: 07/12/2005