It seems the blogosphere has taken it up and identified it for what it is: http://www.technorati.com/cosmos/search.html?rank=&url=wikipedia
The only real offense is the way the writer said "If you know of other supposedly authoritative Web sites that are untrustworthy, send a note to technology@syracuse.com and let me know about them."
Makes Wikipedia sound like a shady used car dealership exposed by the local evening news. :)
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:46:32 +0200, Peter Gervai grin@tolna.net wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:06:56AM +0800, Andrew Lih wrote:
I hesitate to even post this, because it's virtual flame-bait. :) But with all the accolades Wikipedia receives in the press, you have to take the knocks too.
Why, this article is pretty fair. It states only the truth:
- Wikipedia is not reviewed by the academics
- Wikipedia does not guarantee validity or accuracy
- The author of the article is dumb enough not to notice the disclaimers,
the first paragraph of the main page, and to completely missing the point about [[what Wikipedia is]].
I see no bait. :-)
Peter
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l