mojoehand wrote:
> On Jan 7, 7:12 pm, Eric Rucker  wrote:
> 
>> Actually, the correct method if you have first-hand knowledge, is to
>> post it elsewhere, and then make the edit as an anonymous user, citing
>> your post.
> 
> Sneaky. I like the way you think :-)
> 
> Actually, I'm going to just give up. If real facts aren't of interest
> to them, why should I fight it? I have better things to do.

My feeling exactly.

If citations are the only guide, then a frequently repeated lie trumps
a seldom repeated truth.

I have very little faith in the "wiki" principle, whether it is
controlled by unseen editors or by a mob.

If it is to make any sense at all, it must be based on the "credentials"
of each contributor.  It is evident that everything is not known equally
by everyone.

As a person of some knowledge and good intentions, and an obsessive-
compulsive "proofreader", I frequently see things in wikis which are
incorrect either in form or in essence (and I am referring to errors
of fact, not opinion).  I am willing to take the time to edit and
proof my corrections, and would welcome someone knowledgeable reviewing
them and even contacting me if questions arose, but I am not willing
to take the time to fix things if they are often simply blindly restored
to their error state.

I can only assume then, that for all practical purposes, wiki updating
is left to that tiny minority who are willing to research every point
(ha!) and cite references.

-michael

******** Note new website URL ********

NadaNet and AppleCrate II for Apple II parallel computing!
Home page:  http://home.comcast.net/~mjmahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32