Re: coderwiki.com is starting and needs you!

"Richard G. Riley" <rgriley@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

rlb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Richard Bos) writes:

Richard G. Riley <rgriley@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Richard Heathfield <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

In other words, it suffers from the same problem that any wiki suffers from
- editing can be carried out by anyone, no matter how ignorant.

Or, in all fairness, how well informed. No different from any techy
newsgroup really where google will reveal all sorts of wrong answers,
misleading information and general rubbish : invariably bad data is unremovable
though - giving Wikis the edge when uptodate and well maintained.

Wrong. On any techy newsgroup, when misinformation is published, one
will generally find a follow-up posted that corrects the bad
information, and that correction is just as unremovable as the
original

Not wrong at all. There might well be corrections and followups but the
original bad info/posts tends to stay there. Surely you dont refute that?

No; what I refute is the conclusion you draw from that, which is that
this makes Wikis better than newsgroups. IMO, it makes them worse.

rubbish. On a Wiki, when misinformation is posted, anyone can correct
that misinformation - and anyone else can, _and will_, re-uncorrect that
correction just as quickly.

If they have malice aforethough this could be a problem.

_Everybody_ can edit a Wiki. That means that sooner or later you _will_
have malice aforethought. There may be 90% good will out there, but
there only needs to be a single troll to render a Wiki unreliable.

On a newsgroup, the winner is the reader with the patience to read the
entire thread rather than the single post. On a Wiki, the winner is
the

Some can be somewhat long and winding :-;

If you can't be arsed to take some trouble to find reliable information,
that's your problem, not mine or Usenet's.

he's probably the worst example of nothingness to rise to the Top of the
Pops recently - and that's some accolade given the existence of Girls
Disallowed.

The mere existence of Wikis is, in general, a good thing. _Relying_ on a
Wiki, for anything, but especially for correctness, is quite egregiously
unwise.

I would nearly always cross check a wiki. But it is fast and convenient
and I think you are being a little too distrustful.

I have seen too many reasons to trust them.

Richard
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: coderwiki.com is starting and needs you!
    ... - editing can be carried out by anyone, no matter how ignorant. ... and that correction is just as unremovable as the original ... On a Wiki, when misinformation is posted, anyone can correct ... the winner is the reader with the patience to read the ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Wiki as A Time Saver for Researchers
    ... Although I'm not an official spokesman for Wikipedia, ... ("Wiki as A Time Saver for Researchers") ... prepare Wikipedia pages for every sci.* newsgroup. ... Some sci/engineering newsgroups use FAQ ...
    (sci.optics)
  • Re: WSS v3: Attachment in Wiki-Bibliothek
    ... Please post German language questions to a German language newsgroup. ... This newsgroup is for English language questions only. ... Wiki schreiben ... Dokument in Dokument-Library speichern ...
    (microsoft.public.sharepoint.windowsservices)
  • Re: coderwiki.com is starting and needs you!
    ... - editing can be carried out by anyone, no matter how ignorant. ... and that correction is just as unremovable as the ... Bush wiki for an example. ... Popularity means nothing. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: c.l.c wiki update
    ... anyhow - the wiki engine does a good job of presentation. ... information such as resource lists. ... that it fairly describes the newsgroup. ... Any non-portable code/discussion should be as incidental and clearly ...
    (comp.lang.c)
Loading