Re: [sig] Re: Re: Re: Re: cunnan, an SCA wiki
- 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.
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"
> always ready with jugs of cold water! ;-)