TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Re: Using Wikipedia as an "authoritative" source...
Subject:Re: Using Wikipedia as an "authoritative" source... From:Bruce Byfield <bbyfield -at- axion -dot- net> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:15:51 -0700
On Wed, 2005-19-10 at 13:54 -0400, Dick Margulis wrote:
> Unfortunately, the consensus is not always the view represented in
> Wikipedia. The problem is fundamental to the model. Anyone with an
> interest in a topic can write it. And, with many topics, the person most
> interested is the person with an axe to grind. That isn't always
> apparent, though, if you are looking something up that you don't already
> know a bit about.
This problem is not unique to Wikipedia. In a conventional encylopedia,
biases are also frequent. That's especially true if you are looking at
an entry about a controversial topic; I remember while in high school
being unable to get any useful information in an encylopedia about
communism because the articles were so obviously hostile. E
The selection of topics is another bias. Wikipedia doesn't suffer from
that, although the result is often very lopsided topics. Entries of
interest to geeks, for example, are strongly over-represented in
Wikipedia.
One other thing: If a Wikipedia entry has existed for a while, you can
look at its revision history. That can often help you judge the bias of
the current entry, and sometimes balance it out.
> Wikipedia is _a_ source, but it's not authoritative by any stretch of
> the imagination. If you need to understand something accurately (even if
> superficially), don't rely on it too much.
I agree -- but I'd add that the same can be said of any encylopedia.
"You bought all the props for a world that never was,
Now there's holes in the mirror, and less and less applause,
We are all ungrateful bastards, like a dog that bit your hand,
All these years and you still don't understand."
- OysterBand, "Too Late Now"
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: http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
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. http://www.componentone.com/TECHWRL/DocToHelp2005
---
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 http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
