On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 10:00:13AM -0600, Ted Hilts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > 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.
Other people covered this, but since I was one of the people who gave you this advice, I feel that I should echo them a little. :) Yes, Wikipedia is not a totally reliable source. But then, neither is anything else. In my experience, Wikipedia articles on technical topics are a good way of getting a general overview of the subject. On specific details they may be wrong, poorly stated, or out of date -- but no more so than any other source of information (textbooks, magazines, general-interest books, newspapers, lectures, journal articles, etc...). If you really want to learn about a technical subject, you'll generally want to consult multiple independent sources of information to make sure you're getting a complete picture...but if you just need to get the general picture, my experience is that Wikipedia is quite reliable. Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
