[ILUG] Encyclopedia for Linux?

[Ole Tange]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Paul Biggar wrote:

> Wikipedia is made by wiki-fiddlers, a large group of people, mostly
> without any research experience, who sit refreshing the 'new updates'
> page, waiting to make their presence felt.

I am genuinely curious: How on earth do you know that? And will you care
to share whatever research you build this on, so others can form an
informed oppinion?

> To prove this, find the topic you know most about. Then go to the
> wikipedia entry: is it rubbish? Can you find at least 3 mistakes? Is the
> style consistent from paragraph to paragraph? Check the history: can you
> find small facts of dubious merit added? What are the references like? I
> did this for my pet topic (sorting, see Sorting_algorithm) and this
> article is certainly not quotable. It's not awful, certainly, but its a
> long way from good.

If I look in my printed encyclopedia I don't even _find_ an article on
sorting algorithms. If I would like to know something about sorting
algorithms then I would probably be better off with Wikipedia than my
printed encyclopedia. I would expect similar problems would go for
encyclopedias on CD if the users do not regularly get updates. Or for
specialized subjects that are not considered worthy for the CD (e.g.  the
subject DNS:  How many encyclopediae include an entry for the LOC
record? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOC_record).

> So I would say that wikipedia has its use, but if you own encyclopedia,
> you probably want to use them, and wikipedia is a poor substitute. And
> it's not quotable for any real use.

It is really funny, because in my printed encyclopedia Eastern Germany is
a country. In Wikipedia it says it ended in 1990. So which one would be
the better one to quote for the college paper?

Perhaps you will agree that on any research or events happening after the
printing of the encyclopedia it is better to consult Wikipedia as chances
are that Wikipedia is more up to date?


/Ole