Re: Using Wikipedia as an "authoritative" source...

Subject: Re: Using Wikipedia as an "authoritative" source...
From: Mitchell Maltenfort <mmalten -at- gmail -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 12:59:58 -0400

Authoritative, no, but at this stage in my life I consider few
references authoritative.

If I have to look something up, I check three reliable sources.

But I find that Wikipedia is very nice for two things:

* public-domain graphics.

* an estimate of the "consenus" opinion on a topic.

On 10/19/05, Art Campbell <art -dot- campbell -at- gmail -dot- com> wrote:
> Because it crops up here on the list occasionally...
> Art

I can answer any question.
"I don't know" is an answer.
"I don't know yet" is a better answer.


Try WebWorks ePublisher Pro for Word today! Smooth migration of legacy
RoboHelp content into your new Help systems. EContent Magazine Decision-
maker review (October 2005) is here:

Doc-To-Help 2005 converts RoboHelp files with one click. Author with Word or any HTML editor. Visit our site to see a conversion demo movie and learn more.

You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.


Using Wikipedia as an "authoritative" source...: From: Art Campbell

Previous by Author: Re: Internal Documentation Web site
Next by Author: Re: Using Wikipedia as an "authoritative" source...
Previous by Thread: Using Wikipedia as an "authoritative" source...
Next by Thread: Re: Using Wikipedia as an "authoritative" source...

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads