Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 23:27 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Thread beginning with comment 204803
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I see it as yet another example of why wikipedia shouldn't be automatically trusted as a source of information.
No source should be automatically trusted. Even Cloudy makes mistakes.
wikipedia is a secondary source, often tertiary, and should always be treated as any secondary source is treated: as good for a gloss, provisional, and likely wrong for any of a number of reasons, mostly innocent.




Member since:
2007-01-22
I don't see it as unethical. I see it as yet another example of why wikipedia shouldn't be automatically trusted as a source of information. It's a dump-not an encyclopedia. Sometimes it gets cleaned and then messed up again.
I think the dmoz.org model would make more sense. Want to submit a change? Pass it through a volunteer editor(s) first and they will write it up.