Borek wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 03:28:59 +0200, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> Wikipedia is *so* much better, with their anonymous authorship of
>>> articles, lack of credibility, no cites, obscure or non-existant
>>> sources, and ignorant and biased editors.
>>
>> I take your point. I agree that such a system would never work, yet it is
>> more difficult to 'fool' than most. Maybe they can introduce a
>> mod-point-like system whereby authors earn a measure of credibility.
>
> At the same time it have never failed me yet, so it
> already earned credibility.
>
> Best,
> Borek
It's worth looking at the history of changes to figure out how many people
were involved in editing and 'negotiating' the information that is publicly
available. You don't want to be exposed to a so-called monologue.
That is yet another power of the Wiki.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com
|
|
