tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post6552002859411371316..comments2007-06-08T12:36:20.251-05:00Todd Bolenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06156730661243501832tbolen91@bibleplaces.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-67093198288683944742007-06-08T12:36:00.000-05:002007-06-08T12:36:00.000-05:00The one thing I wasn't aware of when I wrote my post is that wiki employs a fairly robust oversight committee that will remove users (like Colbert) who abuse the service. I think, given the presence of continual oversight, that wikipedia is probably a good thing. That was an important assumption that got left out in my original critique of it.Christopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01007093069888736130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-50150413111881794762007-06-08T08:05:00.000-05:002007-06-08T08:05:00.000-05:00Tim - I do think it would be a "good thing" to make appropriate edits on Wikipedia. My problem is that I have a lot of "good things" to do and I will not allow myself to start another "good thing" (why stop with this particular entry?). But perhaps a reader of this blog will have the time and interest.<BR/><BR/>Christopher - in my experience, wikipedia is generally helpful and accurate. I think that the multitude of people who contribute make it better. This particular article mentions a site that honestly I didn't know the name of until yesterday when I looked it up on a very detailed map in order to properly label my photographs. Very few people are reading that article and thus it essentially becomes the mouthpiece of one person with an agenda. Overall, I think there is a place both for Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia, as long as people understand the difference. Properly moderated, I wouldn't be surprised if Wikipedia becomes more accurate than most general reference works. It certainly has more entries than any other subject I know of, and it's accessibility and cost are in its favor.Todd Bolenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06156730661243501832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-69909273765750074902007-06-07T15:50:00.000-05:002007-06-07T15:50:00.000-05:00Todd, this is a great question, and Tim offers a helpful suggestion. I'm curious what you think of my blog post on this subject, and the attending comments from Micah about Wikipedia approaching an accuracy level close to the standard encyclopedia. See here: http://stratkey.blogspot.com/2007/05/wikipedia.htmlChristopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01007093069888736130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-82079182072957154282007-06-07T15:27:00.000-05:002007-06-07T15:27:00.000-05:00It is a lovely photo! BTW do you think it would be a "good thing" to yourself lightly edit the entry to be more accurate? That way Wikipedia gets better, because like it or not people ARE using it!Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07289349880110581469noreply@blogger.com