Biggar, P., et al. 2005a;
> 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.
> =
> A 'wikipedia vs traditional encyclopedia' debate can seem a lot like
> an 'open vs closed source' debate, and open source people tend to like
> it because they can see the parallels. I disagree.
You might be interested in this article by Ed Felten: =
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/index.php?p=3D675
He did some comparisons between Wikipedia and Brittanica, and Wikipedia =
came out slightly better. There is some interesting discussion in the =
comments.
David
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!
