On Apr 21, 1:05*am, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"AF6AY"

Everyone ought to realize that "Wikipedia" data can be written by
ANYONE

** As are NG posts.

The difference being that Wikis are full of checkable references and are
subject to on-going correction.

The best Wikipedia articles are often filled with good checkable
references, but other times it sounds like they were written in a
foreign language and translated into English and have few (if any)
good references.

Just because a Wikipedia entry isn't well-written or sounds awkward
doesn't mean it's wrong, but I will often reject what I don't like in
the poorly written ones.

Somewhere there's a bunch of people who spend their time correcting
and improving Wikipedia entries, and I think overall they are doing a
good job, but that doesn't mean the result is always devoted to my
interests. Just like anything else in this world, it's got workers and
it's got managers and they aren't always devoting their attention to
the little corners of arcania that I live in.

It's not that the Encyclopedia Britannica is perfect either. I can
open it up to the very few subjects that I happen to be expert on and
find over-simplifications and a lack of cites to what I consider to be
the best references. That doesn't mean it's out-and-out wrong, just
that it's an Encyclopedia, and by definition they can't do anything
but touch on the surface of all the interesting stuff in the world.

Of course in academia I got real used to opening a journal and instead
of reading the articles, to go straight to the references and see if
they are quoting one of my articles :-). Breadth vs specialization,
can't pick them both.

Tim.