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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l