TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:re: Using Wikipedia as an "authoritative" source From:"Lou Quillio" <public -at- quillio -dot- com> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:17:58 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, October 20, 2005 9:58 am, Sean Hower said:
> Maybe I'm wrong on this, but has anyone actually said that Wikipedia was
> an authoritative source on any topic? Sure, people have said that they use
> it, but has anyone said that Wikipedia is their ONLY source of information
> and that they trust it 100%?
>
> If not, why all the arguements about Wikipedia not being authoritative?
> Isn't that a straw man? Unless, of course, the assertion is that all
> information sources must be authoritative, which is great if authoritative
> meant that the information is 100% accurate and unbiased. If that is the
> criteria, I've never seen an authoritative source. I've only seen ones
> that had the money, influence, weapons, or reputation to fake it. ;-)
Precisely right. Wikipedia is what it is. Use it or don't.
If I examine a Wikipedia entry and decide to make a link to it, say to
provide background on an uncommon term, I *know* that folks following the
link won't see exactly the same page I did. In fact they may click
through in the few moments after some joker has defaced the page and
before it's been repaired. That's how it is.
On the other hand, the entry I've linked to may concern an evolving topic.
The odds are strong that, all things equal, there'll be something germane
and up-to-date at that Wikipedia page five years from now -- so the link
stays fresh and relevant, which benefits my content.
There will also be outbound links from the Wikipedia entry, to get folks
started. And of course there's Google; there's always Google.
Now, there _are_ questions about how to make Wikipedia the best Wikipedia
it can be, but they're parochial. It doesn't aspire to authority, so
nobody should be surprised if Wikipedia isn't "authoritative" in the ways
they mistakenly supposed it to be.
Try WebWorks ePublisher Pro for Word today! Smooth migration of legacy
RoboHelp content into your new Help systems. EContent Magazine Decision-
maker review (October 2005) is here: http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
Doc-To-Help 2005 converts RoboHelp files with one click. Author with Word or any HTML editor. Visit our site to see a conversion demo movie and learn more. http://www.componentone.com/TECHWRL/DocToHelp2005
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
