[WikiEN-l] Re: Article - Librarian: Don't use Wikipedia as source

[Pete/Pcb21]

Andrew Lih wrote:

> This from the Syracuse Post-Standard and comes up with a very weak and
> uninformed criticism of Wikipedia. I'm sure one of Jimbo's wonderful
> standard letters will set this writer straight.

Agreed. However there are some positive things to take from the article 
(see below).

 > [Article]
> It's not the online version of an established, well-researched
> traditional encyclopedia. Instead, Wikipedia is a do-it-yourself
> encyclopedia, without any credentials.

That the librarian is concerned that WP appears to be an "established, 
well-researched traditional encyclopedia" when it is merely [gasp!] a 
wiki, shows how well Wikipedia must look and read.

This is a testament to the ongoing increasing quality of the text, and 
the great new professional look that 1.3 provided.

Re disclaimers: from Britannica's disclaimer page:
(http://account.britannica.com/usage.html, section 5)

NEITHER BRITANNICA, ITS AFFILIATES, NOR ANY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE 
EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, THIRD-PARTY CONTENT PROVIDERS OR LICENSORS MAKES ANY 
WARRANTY WHATSOEVER [...] AS TO THE RESULTS THAT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM 
USE OF THE SERVICE OR AS TO THE ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, AVAILABILITY, 
SUITABILITY, QUALITY, OR OPERATION OF ANY INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, OR 
SERVICE PROVIDED ON OR ACCESSIBLE FROM THE SERVICE.

And of course virtually identical wording at:

Columbia : http://www.bartleby.com/sv/terms.html , section 3
Encarta  : http://privacy.msn.com/tou/ , section 9
Encyclopedia.com : http://www.encyclopedia.com/terms.asp, section 5