ken at secdat.com
Sat Jan 27 10:27:41 EST 2007
Greg Rundlett wrote:
> Ken, you obviously have good RDBMS knowledge, I hope that the next
> time you discover such mistakes in wikipedia that you might just hit
> the 'edit' link and add your contributions for everyone's benefit.
> Then you could post a link to the NYPHP group about how the article on
> wikipedia *is* accurate and well-informed -- thanks to you.
Thanks, I did immediately consider this. However, as the task is
daunting, I have asked myself how it might be accomplished over time, as
just about the entire article has to be re-considered. My understanding
is you start out by 'flagging' the article as biased, and then in some
cases you have to work out the changes on the 'talk' page.
However, there is some legitimate reverse sentiment here. One idea is
simply this, that the true information you might get if I edited that
page is all already there -- you just have to look for RDBMS. I have to
wonder a little bit why the author feels no need to educate himself
before writing the article, or how it suddenly becomes my responsibility
to do so.
The second idea is that there is some responsibility in the reader to
pursue that information. Each of knows what we know because we went out
of our way to learn. In a 3-tier world it is hard to justify ignorance
of one of the tiers when so much information is available. Is it my job
to re-write on that page what is so well written elsewhere? If I can do
a service by pointing out that the page is wrong and why, then those who
wish to get the good info know a little more about what they are looking
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 273 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the talk