Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Re: Re: Re: cunnan, an SCA wiki

Expand Messages
  • Alastair Millar
    I would avoid using this like the plague. Given the nature of my job (I am a Czech- English translator specialising in archaeological, heritage and related
    Message 1 of 9 , Aug 13 4:26 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      I would avoid using this like the plague.

      Given the nature of my job (I am a Czech->English translator
      specialising in archaeological, heritage and related topics), I
      regularly, i.e. every day, have to use the internet to look up
      terminology, vocabulary, historical contexts etc.

      Whatever the THEORY, my actual EXPERIENCE with Wikipedia has been that
      it is not up to standard. It contains much information which is
      plagiarised from other sources on the web, and a great deal of material
      that is simply incorrect - and which has not been corrected simply
      because it falls within subject areas likely to be of interest to very
      few readers. Moreover, presumably because there is no academic rigour, a
      great deal of what might charitably be termed "Romantic" (with capital
      R) material is on there that cannot really be supported...

      As a result, I have stopped using Wikipedia altogether: it's just too
      unreliable, uneven and unbalanced.

      So... I would say that the Knowledge Pages should NOT be in an
      open-access, anyone-can-post-whatever format. Not only is the quality of
      available material an issue: so too is the danger of the relevant
      knowledge page losing its structure, or of certain areas (clothing,
      perhaps) coming to dominate entirely at the expense of less "popular"
      topics.

      Alastair
      always ready with jugs of cold water! ;-)

      --
      No virus found in this outgoing message.
      Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
      Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.8/71 - Release Date: 12.8.2005
    • Tom Cerul
      Alastair, thank you for your response. Wikipedia has policies to handle plagerism (see
      Message 2 of 9 , Aug 21 11:20 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Alastair, thank you for your response.

        Wikipedia has policies to handle plagerism (see
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spotting_possible_copyright_violations
        ).

        I wish I knew what specifically was incorrect so that I could go fix
        it for the next reader. The edit process is so quick that I spend
        most of my time finding sources and references for the

        Regarding accademic rigour, from the article "Replies to common
        objections" in the section on Trustworthiness:
        "Note that the three leading competing online encyclopedias have
        disclaimers and provide no warranty as to their accuracy - Britannica,
        Encarta and Bartleby. Sometimes the staff of those encyclopedias
        forget about the disclaimers.
        [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30326-2004Sep17.html%5d
        "
        --from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections#Trustworthiness

        In short, quality increases over time as people contribute.

        Please accept my apologies, but I do not understand what you mean by
        big R "Romantic" material.

        Regarding the possible dilution of focus, I must point out that the
        number of websites focusing on the naked human form has not at all
        affected my ability to hunt for jobs on the web. Similiarly, I
        propose that the profusion of clothing related pages would not obscure
        the limited number of pages on cooking, dance or weaponry.

        Overall, I am trying to find a place where the Slavic Interest Group
        has space for its pages, a way to contribute small amounts of time and
        a continuing ability to fight link rot so that large portions ot the
        knowledge pages do not become inaccessible due to unfortunate
        circumstances in the contributors life.

        Respectfully,
        Tomislaus


        On 8/13/05, Alastair Millar <alastair@...> wrote:
        > I would avoid using this like the plague.
        > [...]
        > Whatever the THEORY, my actual EXPERIENCE with Wikipedia has been that
        > it is not up to standard. It contains much information which is
        > plagiarised from other sources on the web, and a great deal of material
        > that is simply incorrect - and which has not been corrected simply
        > because it falls within subject areas likely to be of interest to very
        > few readers. Moreover, presumably because there is no academic rigour, a
        > great deal of what might charitably be termed "Romantic" (with capital
        > R) material is on there that cannot really be supported...
        >
        > As a result, I have stopped using Wikipedia altogether: it's just too
        > unreliable, uneven and unbalanced.
        >
        > So... I would say that the Knowledge Pages should NOT be in an
        > open-access, anyone-can-post-whatever format. Not only is the quality of
        > available material an issue: so too is the danger of the relevant
        > knowledge page losing its structure, or of certain areas (clothing,
        > perhaps) coming to dominate entirely at the expense of less "popular"
        > topics.
        >
        > Alastair
        > always ready with jugs of cold water! ;-)
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.