[Magdalen] Wikipedia

[James Oppenheimer-Crawford]

They used to be simply awful, but have put some measures in place to
prevent the kids' editing that made them so famous, in a kind of FFJ way.

I recall an article which analyzed the editing of some articles. Actually
very humorous!

On Aug 26, 2016 5:08 PM, "Scott Knitter" <scottknitter at gmail.com> wrote:

> Wikipedia is highly valuable, and more so as more people write,
> revise, and repair articles. Now that more people know how Wikipedia
> is created and maintained, I think there will be less derision aimed
> at it. Clearly it's not the last word on anything nor a scholarly
> source, but then neither is a printed encyclopedia. It's a first
> reference and quite often a start of further research. At its best, it
> gives exactly what I want to know about a subject. And realizing it
> can be wrong, or that someone can come in and make it wrong, helps one
> use its riches appropriately and recognize when it fails to provide
> (because no one has written or perfected an article on the subject,
> yet).
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Allan Carr <allanc25 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > From time to time, someone snottily refers to my use of Wikipedia.
> That's just another putdown. Never in more than a decade has anyone
> supplied any contrary information to the information I've used.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Scott R. Knitter
> Edgewater, Chicago, Illinois USA
>