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

Re: [sig] Re: Re: Re: Re: cunnan, an SCA wiki

Expand Messages
  • Tom Cerul
    Alastair, thank you for your response. Wikipedia has policies to handle plagerism (see
    Message 1 of 9 , Aug 21, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Alastair, thank you for your response.

      Wikipedia has policies to handle plagerism (see

      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.
      --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.


      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.