Strong: revolutionary format. collaboration gone right. very decent end products. FREE.
Weak: Entrenched in committess and committees and committees. Overemphasis on Western and internet culture. Emergent 'Elite Class' of editors and admins who not only know the ropes, but create the ropes.
-S
On 3/7/07, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org wrote:
Could someone hazard a guess on which areas the Wikipedia is strong in, and which areas it is still lacking? FN
On 3/6/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I really don't think "we" all in agreement on what "we" want.
I do not have a problem with people using Wikipedia as a primary source for information. When it comes to certain topics, I would encourage it because I have confidence in our accuracy and wide coverage.
However, I would not encourage people to stake their fortune or their health on Wikipedia at all, and there are certain topics that I would discourage people from using Wikipedia as a primary source or in some cases even a secondary source for (pretty much anything related to Eastern Europe, all of which is still definitely a Work In Progress when it comes to POV).
Mark
-- FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please) http://fn.goa-india.org http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com What bloggers are saying about Goa: http://planet.goa-india.org/
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l