It seems the blogosphere has taken it up and identified it for what it is:
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(a)syracuse.com and let me know about them."
Makes Wikipedia sound like a shady used car dealership exposed by the
local evening news. :)
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:46:32 +0200, Peter Gervai <grin(a)tolna.net> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:06:56AM +0800, Andrew Lih
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. :-)
Wikipedia-l mailing list