Ted, Wikipedia is a great resource -- you just have to take what you read there with a grain of salt. Many people writing there have an agenda, and some are clueless. If you're reading about something controversial, check the discussion pages; they can often point out that there is a conflict in the information.
In my experience, for technical matters, the pages are unlikely to be just-plain-wrong -- particularly when explaining the basics of how something works. (Conversely, if basics aren't enough, Wikipedia might not be the best source, simply because it's an encyclopedia, not an exhaustive reference). With science and math articles, if you stay clear of obvious cranks, you're not likely to go too far wrong--although you may find most of the sci/math articles tend to be written such that they're rather opaque to people who don't already have exhaustive subject knowledge. In short, Wikipedia is sometimes questionable, but so are things you read on mailing lists and forums, and even articles published by professional journalists. As long as you're careful, you can learn many things. On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Ted Hilts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hope this message is not OT and forgive my ignorance but I received a very > informative response to some of my questions and several people recommended > that I make better use of everyones time by first going to Wikipedia. The > messages were more or less as follows: > > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi_core for more information > > So, I am being told by some to use wikipedia as a credible reference for > technical questions. > > It is my understanding that use of wikipedia may subject the reader to > faulty information. There were several blurbs in the news and in news > letters that very clearly indicated a "user beware" warning. Also, there > was recently an internal conflict between several individuals working at > wikipedia and the conflict was over the growing content some of which was > mis-information and in one case submitted by someone using false > credentials. > > So, I became very cautious about wikipedia although there seems to be a lot > of "sound" information. I have seen a lot of references to wikipedia from > the Debian lists to lists that are science oriented and mathematically > oriented. Does anyone know what the real facts are on wikipedia. Are all > the news items I have read on this subject just garbage??? I collect > hundreds of news reports every day and all of them are credible and > responsibly written. I obtained my information via these news reports. So, > what's going on here??? > > Thanks, Ted > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject > of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
