[TheForge] Dumpster Diving

[terry l. ridder]

hello;

On Sun, 20 May 2007, Craig Schaefer wrote:

>
> What I understand is that you seem to think your
> lawyers suggested us non-law types use a web
> reference known for inaccuracies.
> Does not seem logical.
>
okay, give clear and concise examples of the
wikipedia.com known inaccuracies.

a quick google search of 'wikipedia accuracy'

BBC NEWS | Technology | Wikipedia survives research test
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm

Experts rate Wikipedia's accuracy higher than non-experts
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061127-8296.html

The word on Wikipedia: Trust but verify - Nightly News with Brian ...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17740041/

The Independent questions Wikipedia's accuracy - Wikinews
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/The_Independent_questions_Wikipedia's_accuracy

Accuracy of Wikipedia matches Britannica, review shows
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2005/12/15/Wikipedia-review051215.html

Wikipedia Erects Accuracy Firewall
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1903728,00.asp

sourcefrog : More on Wikipedia accuracy
http://sourcefrog.net/weblog/software/wikipedia/accuracy.html

to quote briefly from the above url:
<begin quote>
It should be noted that the three other leading online encyclopedias
have disclaimers and provide no warranty as to their accuracy -
Britannica, Encarta and Bartleby.
Sometimes the staff of those encyclopedias forget this fact.
<end    quote>

Britannica Terms Of Use
http://corporate.britannica.com/termsofuse.html

Encarta Term Of Use
http://privacy.msn.com/tou/

Bartleby Terms Of Use
http://www.bartleby.com/sv/terms.html

When It Comes to Content, Caveat Surfer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30326-2004Sep17.html

>
> My understanding seems to pass scrutiny.
>
that remains to be seen.

-- 
terry l. ridder ><>
>

-- 
terry l. ridder ><>