I have been using the Wikipedia for about a year now as a first source when it comes to defining a topic. It is usually a reasonable approach to start with that reference to gain a frame of reference, then continue to a search using Google or Vivisimo.
I think that some of my comrades in Toastmasters hae been using it as well. One of the people involved in last week's meeting were quoting nearly the same definition for the word I had found in Wikipedia (the word was "serendipity").
Firefox is a nice browser, in that I can have my primary references (Wikipedia, Google, and Vivisimo) as address bar-level search engines simultaneously (via a nice dropdown).
I ran into this article on FUD by the old order today that gets into some of the specifics between the old order and the new, a battle that the old order would like to have thought was one with the fall of a few dot coms, but really still exists today.
I do believe in the power of great editors, but I also believe in the power of many enlightened individuals working to create an alternative. Not every 10 year old has parents that can afford a triple digit encyclopedia. Why not give them the basics and let them peruse the literature deeper for more interesting insights away from the bell curve mentioned in Robert McHenry's article?
I did go to the Alexander Hamilton diff log, You can see changes over 500 so far, that shows a lot of revisioning. But this revision in particular was to remove "graffiti". So it would seem like any other public item, it is possible that it will be subjective to crime.
Posted by ledlogic at February 26, 2005 08:20 PM