From: Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@...>
Date: 2007-03-22T07:05:07+09:00
Subject: Re: Object/Relational Mapping is the Vietnam of Computer Science

On 3/21/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:47:50AM +0900, John Joyce wrote:
> > Ok, I read it. But never call wikipedia fact-checking!
>
> That's only slightly disingenuous.  I'd put it this way:
>
> "Never call a general resource 'fact-checking', regardless of the
> specific example of a general resource."
>
> If you want to check facts, you need to go after the specific,
> stand-alone, specialized resources.  Always check with primary sources,
> or be aware you could be wrong.  It doesn't matter whether it's Google,
> Wikipedia, Britannica, the OED for etymology, or Ask Chad -- general
> resources are not authoritative primary sources on specifics (generally
> speaking, har har).
>
> Sorry.  I just tend to get my back up a little when someone singles out
> a specific general resource, as though the problem isn't endemic to
> general resources in general, almost tautologically.

I'm in total agreement.  But it does seem like the Wikipedia is a
favorite whipping-boy these days.

A week or so ago a columnist in the local paper*, wrote a piece about
his experience with the accuracy of wikipedia.  It seems that he
anonymously inserted** a bunch of imaginative junk in the article
about himself in wikipedia***.

He went on an on about how long such stuff can live on in WP, but the
upshot of the column was that someone discovered his fanciful 'spam'
and deleted it.

All in all the self-policing of the wikipedia seems to work a lot
better than it's press would have one believe, and there's some
evidence that the wikipedia is just as, if not more, reliable on
average than more 'respectable' and often more dated sources, like the
Britannica which has been on an intermittent vendetta against it.

Not to belittle the point that it's certainly not a primary source and
shouldn't be considered as such, any more than the other references
cited.

* I can't recall his name, and I don't know if he's syndicated or how widely.

** He wasn't clear if the article in question even existed before he got there.

** Which of course violated the wikipedia policy of not posting
directly about yourself.

-- 
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/