..before Wikipedia gets the level of respect that it deserves. While encyclopedia companies will probably never like this online resource for the obvious economic reasons, there are plenty of other detractors who are going to continue to hammer it for their own reasons. Those people include subject matter experts who will take exception to the way information is presented, either because it isn't written authoritatively or is factually incorrect, and by groups who object to "boiling down" complex informatio
It may be awhile before Wikipedia gets the level of respect that it deserves.
Or before Wikipedia deserves the level of respect that it gets. It's a work in progress (and an impressive one at that), but it's not a definite source. Despite that, many (most?) online communities treat it more like the latter than the former.
there are plenty of other detractors who are going to continue to hammer it for their own reasons. Those people include subject matter experts who will take exception to the way information is presented, either because it isn't written authoritatively or is factually incorrect,
Yeah, those subject matter experts are picky, aren't they, expecting an "encyclopedia" to be accurate? This is a valid criticism, as incorrect information presented as factual is often much worse than no information at all, or information presented as opinion or speculation.
but as more factually correct entries are secured in the repository then subject matter experts will warm to the idea of easily-accessible information.
Indeed, you seem to note that it needs more factually correct entries yourself.
And before you start flaming, I do, in fact, contribute [wikipedia.org] to Wikipedia, and enjoy doing so. And I'm constantly impressed on how well it self-polices, and how willing people are to contribute.
But I'm also appalled at some of the terribly incorrect pages that are present, and that's just on pages discussing topics on which I'm knowledgable. I'm very hesitant to use it in the manner that an encyclopedia is most useful: instructing me on something that's outside my knowlege.
It may be awhile.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It may be awhile.. (Score:2)
Or before Wikipedia deserves the level of respect that it gets. It's a work in progress (and an impressive one at that), but it's not a definite source. Despite that, many (most?) online communities treat it more like the latter than the former.
there are plenty of other detractors who are going to continue to hammer it for their own reasons. Those people include subject matter experts who will take exception to the way information is presented, either because it isn't written authoritatively or is factually incorrect,
Yeah, those subject matter experts are picky, aren't they, expecting an "encyclopedia" to be accurate? This is a valid criticism, as incorrect information presented as factual is often much worse than no information at all, or information presented as opinion or speculation.
but as more factually correct entries are secured in the repository then subject matter experts will warm to the idea of easily-accessible information.
Indeed, you seem to note that it needs more factually correct entries yourself.
And before you start flaming, I do, in fact, contribute [wikipedia.org] to Wikipedia, and enjoy doing so. And I'm constantly impressed on how well it self-polices, and how willing people are to contribute.
But I'm also appalled at some of the terribly incorrect pages that are present, and that's just on pages discussing topics on which I'm knowledgable. I'm very hesitant to use it in the manner that an encyclopedia is most useful: instructing me on something that's outside my knowlege.