TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
RE: Wikipedians wanted [was Re: All caps for UNIX (for no good reason)]
Subject:RE: Wikipedians wanted [was Re: All caps for UNIX (for no good reason)] From:Sean Hower <hokumhome -at- freehomepage -dot- com> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
-------------------------------
I've used Wikipedia to look up general terms, technologies, and sometimes even specific items, but I never rely on it solely--I always go and double- or triple-check its information against a more "authoritative" or "official" source.
-------------------------------
Never rely on one source of information when doing research, regardless of how authoritarian--oops, I meant authoratative--that source is. Never rely on one Internet source precisely because any idiot with an opinion can pass themselves off as an authoritarian--oops, I meant authoratative--source.
------------------------------
For those that use Wikipedia, how reliable and up-to-date do you find it
to be? Is it the first place you go to check for a term or item that is
new to you? Do you double-check information you find on Wikipedia to
make sure that whoever wrote the entry really knows what he/she is
talking about? Or do you use Wikipedia to double-check information found
on some "official" or "authoritative" source to be sure that the
authority knows what they're talking about?
------------------------------
Yes.
I start with Wikipedia, mostly because I can get to it easily and I know that I'm likely to find the information I need. I read what they have to say and follow any links. Then check other sources not so much to verify the accuracy of Wikipedia but rather to get a better understanding of the topic. Some topics, after all, are open to interpretation from differing schools of thought and I always like to know which school of thought I'm listening to.
In general, I've found Wikipedia to be pretty accurate. I'm willing to bet that the people who do post are enthusiasts or professionals and want good information. I assume, and yes we all know what happens when you assume, that anyone who does go through the trouble of posting would keep an eye on that post to make sure incorrect information doesn't get in.
Now Shipping -- WebWorks ePublisher Pro for Word! Easily create online
Help. And online anything else. Redesigned interface with a new
project-based workflow. Try it today! http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
Doc-To-Help 2005 converts RoboHelp files with one click. Author with Word or any HTML editor. Visit our site to see a conversion demo movie and learn more. http://www.componentone.com/TECHWRL/DocToHelp2005
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
