Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (5) | Ignore Thread Prev | Next
Author: Chapman208 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 27  
Subject: Re: Digging for treasure Date: 9/12/2006 6:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
>>>>I've been refered to Wiki and found it lacking. Didn't realize it was editable.

Wyne: As I said, Wikipedia is only as good as the people who do the editing. Some articles are extremely thorough and up-to-date, and some are lacking. To see how to edit, go to (for example): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_transformation. At the top of the page, there are several tabs. One says "Edit this page". Simply click on it to make changes.

It's certainly possible for multiple people to disagree on the content, and then there can be something of an "editing war" as people change the content back and forth. (You tend to see this primarily on topics related to religion or politics--big surprise). But eventually some level of equilibrium is generally reached as multiple parties end up with a compromise that most can live with (or perhaps some just give up in frustration--your choice).

It may be a while before Wiki replaces (or at least stands beside) Nature and the New England Journal of Medicine as a a recognized peer-review forum, but there's no reason it can't get there eventually. (If nothing else, it's a facinating process to watch it grow and evolve. The home page of wikipedia.org says that there are over 1.3 million articles in the database. Wow!)

>>>>Theoretical science needs (IMHO) to be vetted over and over until proved beyond doubt (ok so sometimes decades between theory and acceptance). Is there a better way? I can't say because I tend to have a jaded, cynical view on most things, except 'science fiction' that is at least plausible.

Hey, if you don't like the quality of what you see (or content is lacking), fix it! That's the beauty of Wiki. It may be more along the lines of Discover magazine at this point than Nature; but, like Discover, it certainly has much more ability to reach the masses than does Nature. Millions of people every day read parts of Wikipedia. I know I look there at least several times a week for information. And, unlike printed media, it is updated daily. The only reason information will get stale in Wikipedia is if the "subject matter experts" don't keep it current.

Mark.
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post  
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (5) | Ignore Thread Prev | Next

Announcements

2013 Feste Award Voting Begins!
Who will win the 2013 Feste Award? Vote now for the Fool that most exemplifies the Fool Community mission of Learning Together!
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Post of the Day:
Berkshire Hathaway

The American Energy Revolution
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
Community Home
Speak Your Mind, Start Your Blog, Rate Your Stocks

Community Team Fools - who are those TMF's?
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and "#1 Media Company to Work For" (BusinessInsider 2011)! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.
Advertisement