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

Andrew Lih andrew.lih at gmail.com
Thu Aug 26 10:12:06 UTC 2004

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 at 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 at 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 at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

Andrew Lih
andrew.lih at gmail.com

More information about the Wikipedia-l mailing list