[Vwoolf] Wikipedia. PFFT.

[twoshoes at yourlink.ca]

I worked as a subject editor for a "real" encyclopedia for 13 years, and
have no respect for Wikipedia's misleading claim of being an
"encyclopedia." Not when just anyone can write an article, rather than
someone who has seriously studied a subject or worked in a particular
field; not when there is no academic peer review. Call yourself a
magazine then, or a newspaper, or a blog, or a collection; not an
encyclopedia. 

It's a great jumping-off point for finding authoritative sources to
follow up, but I don't trust Wikipedia itself as far as I could throw
it.  

I also don't like the way Wikipedia rips off other sources and presents
them as its own. "This article is a stub," it says. How many readers
know what a stub is? Wikipedia has printed paragraphs from articles I've
written, and made it look like I was the one who copied from Wikipedia.
Rzzzl Frzzzl Grrrrr. 

A few years ago a national radio program here in Canada broadcasted
interviews with famous or celebrity subjects. During each interview it
would list several "facts" it had found in Wikipedia's article about the
person, and the subject would either deny or verify their validity.
There was always at least one Wikipedia "fact" that was wrong. Every
single time.  

Pfft, I say.  

Kate 

http://stubblejumperscafe.wordpress.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/vwoolf/attachments/20180105/4d581526/attachment.html>