[Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent issues.

[Peter Damian]

> It is helpful that on Wikipedia the editorial process is largely
> transparent, so the question "how did it get like this?" can actually
> be answered. Wikipedia is not reliable, but it turns out that how
> paper encyclopedias and newspapers were written was similarly
> susceptible

In the case of newspapers probably yes.  In the case of encyclopedias,
I think not.   There are severe problems with the Wikipedia coverage of
philosophy which you wouldn't find here, for instance.  And so for the
humanities generally. When I make this point on Wikipedia, the answer is
usually that Wikipedia is for pop culture, whereas encyclopedias are for
'proper culture' or 'high culture' or whatever.  I don't really understand 
this
distinction.

Meanwhile, a quick test for line wrap. asdf asdf asdf sadf sadf  asdf asdf 
asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf 
asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf 
asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf 
asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf asdf sadf sadf

Peter