Delirium wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote:
> That's the lead-in to the purpose of the
conference. It seems like
> good news to see yet another recognized authority using Wikipedia to
> provide definitions of the terms for the foci of its trade.
This is a great thing, because it also showcases one
of our strengths:
We're becoming an authoritative source for summaries of consensus
opinion. A common way of doing that is to find a few authors who have
made statements, like "according to Foo, spyware is 'blah'; according to
Foo2, it's 'blah2'". Wikipedia sort of collects and summarizes those
sorts of things for them.
(For our good articles anyway. :-)
Our technical coverage has some gaps, but most of it is of sterling quality.
If I want to learn WTF something I've barely heard of *actually is*, I look
at Wikipedia first - a Google search tending to turn up mailing list posts
(which I look to for tech support, not introductions) and Linux HOWTOs dated
six years ago. I use and *recommend* Wikipedia for technical matters now.
- d.