I received this in my email (I'm disguising parts of my mail header).
Received: from xxx [999.999.999.999] by mail.whatever.com.au (SMTPD32-7.13) id ABFFAF640142; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:18:07 +1100 Received: from smtp3.hushmail.com(65.39.178.135) by medusa.ljh.com.au via smtp id 353d_5d4abf3c_9a46_11d9_9d27_00304811e5bb; Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:18:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp3.hushmail.com (localhost.hushmail.com [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.hushmail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A4816A332F for csherlock@blah.com.au; Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:20:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailserver1.hushmail.com (mailserver1host.hushmail.com [65.39.178.45]) by smtp3.hushmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for csherlock@blah.com.au; Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:20:22 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nobody@localhost) by mailserver1.hushmail.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8/Submit) id j2LKKLof055924 for csherlock@ljh.com.au; Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:20:21 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: 200503212020.j2LKKLof055924@mailserver1.hushmail.com Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:20:18 -0800 To: csherlock@blah.com.au Cc: Subject: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content From: debussy@cyber-rights.net X-RCPT-TO: csherlock@blah.com.au Status: U X-UIDL: 409887403
"Can anyone say irony? The Encyclopedia Britannica uses an even smaller number of people to write their articles. Through the years, the EB has proven wrong in many of their editions. That they are more correct in their latest works shows that they have the same issues as Wikipedia. TBSDY "
You utter moron. The difference is they're a proper encyclopedia and the wikipedia is just a web noticeboard. (The worst of all the web's trash boards for geeks and flamers and dirty arrogant morons.)
csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
Mark Pellegrini wrote:
Everyone's favorite FUD-master is at it again --- http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0503200191mar20,1,26199.story?c...
/ /*...* / A similar hyperbole surrounds such projects as the Wikipedia, a free online encyclopedia open to all. The Wikipedia's apologists emphasize the great number of volunteers who have taken part in the project and the number of entries they have contributed. They emphasize also the communal nature of the undertaking, in which anyone with a better understanding of a subject, or a bigger ax to grind, can edit what someone else has created. Their prime article of faith is that this openness will inevitably lead to a high level of accuracy and quality. ...
Robert McHenry is former editor of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and is the author of "How to Know."
/This is the same guy who called us the Faith-based encyclopedia and compared us to a public toilet- http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html
--Mark
"In each of these examples, a small and self-selected group convinces itself not so much that it represents the greater world beyond the computer screen but that it is in some ineffable way superior to it, that it has transcended the need for the hard lessons the rest of us have learned about how things actually work."
Can anyone say irony? The Encyclopedia Britannica uses an even smaller number of people to write their articles. Through the years, the EB has proven wrong in many of their editions. That they are more correct in their latest works shows that they have the same issues as Wikipedia.
TBSDY