re: Using Wikipedia as an "authoritative" source

Subject: re: Using Wikipedia as an "authoritative" source
From: Sean Hower <hokumhome -at- freehomepage -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 06:58:18 -0700 (PDT)

Maybe I'm wrong on this, but has anyone actually said that Wikipedia was an authoritative source on any topic? Sure, people have said that they use it, but has anyone said that Wikipedia is their ONLY source of information and that they trust it 100%?

If not, why all the arguements about Wikipedia not being authoritative? Isn't that a straw man? Unless, of course, the assertion is that all information sources must be authoritative, which is great if authoritative meant that the information is 100% accurate and unbiased. If that is the criteria, I've never seen an authoritative source. I've only seen ones that had the money, influence, weapons, or reputation to fake it. ;-)

Sean Hower - tech writer

Create your own web site for FREE at


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.


Previous by Author: Structured authoring - more than just XML/SGML?
Next by Author: re: Dreamweaver to text or PDF?
Previous by Thread: Re: Cubicle noise canceling
Next by Thread: Re: Using Wikipedia as an "authoritative" source

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

Sponsored Ads