[ANSTHRLD] Wikipedia

[tmcd at panix.com]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006, Jay Rudin <rudin at ev1.net> wrote:
> You can use a source if it's been proven to be consistently correct.

If that were true, then very few sources could be used (even leaving
aside the standard of proof).

> Wikipedia isn't a single source, and has proven *not* to be
> consistently correct.

There was the recent study suggesting that Wikipedia tended to have as
many major errors as the Encyclopedia Britannica, and we do take the
EB to be authoritative in certain ways, but leave that aside.

I use Wikipedia like Flags of the World: they can be good starting
places and pointers to further information.  For example, I'm just
finishing a Letter of Intent to Protect.  Georgia (the one with
Caucasians ... er, as in the Caucasus) didn't seem to have a clear
government page for its new flag.  But the posting-board comments on
the Flags of the World page provided a translation of the presidential
decree (the links are now broken) and much discussion, and the
discussion appears authoritative enough that I used FOTW as my major
source.  The Wikipedia page on Georgia's flag appears to not have as
much detail as I wanted, but I could have used it as well.

Denyel Lincoln
-- 
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com