I received this in my email (I'm disguising parts of my mail header).
Received: from xxx [999.999.999.999] by mail.whatever.com.au
(SMTPD32-7.13) id ABFFAF640142; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:18:07 +1100
Received: from smtp3.hushmail.com(65.39.178.135) by medusa.ljh.com.au
via smtp id 353d_5d4abf3c_9a46_11d9_9d27_00304811e5bb;
Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:18:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from
smtp3.hushmail.com (
localhost.hushmail.com [127.0.0.1])
by
smtp3.hushmail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A4816A332F
for <csherlock(a)blah.com.au>au>; Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:20:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from
mailserver1.hushmail.com (
mailserver1host.hushmail.com
[65.39.178.45])
by
smtp3.hushmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
for <csherlock(a)blah.com.au>au>; Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:20:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from nobody@localhost)
by
mailserver1.hushmail.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8/Submit) id j2LKKLof055924
for csherlock(a)ljh.com.au; Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:20:21 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <200503212020.j2LKKLof055924(a)mailserver1.hushmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:20:18 -0800
To: csherlock(a)blah.com.au
Cc:
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content
From: <debussy(a)cyber-rights.net>
X-RCPT-TO: <csherlock(a)blah.com.au>
Status: U
X-UIDL: 409887403
"Can anyone say irony? The Encyclopedia Britannica uses an even
smaller number of people to write their articles. Through the
years, the EB has proven wrong in many of their editions. That they
are more correct in their latest works shows that they have the
same issues as Wikipedia. TBSDY "
You utter moron. The difference is they're a proper encyclopedia
and the wikipedia is just a web noticeboard. (The worst of all the
web's trash boards for geeks and flamers and dirty arrogant
morons.)
csherlock(a)ljh.com.au wrote:
Mark Pellegrini wrote:
Everyone's favorite FUD-master is at it again
---
http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0503200191mar20,1,26199.story?…
/
/*...*
/ A similar hyperbole surrounds such projects as the Wikipedia, a free
online encyclopedia open to all. The Wikipedia's apologists emphasize
the great number of volunteers who have taken part in the project and
the number of entries they have contributed. They emphasize also the
communal nature of the undertaking, in which anyone with a better
understanding of a subject, or a bigger ax to grind, can edit what
someone else has created. Their prime article of faith is that this
openness will inevitably lead to a high level of accuracy and quality.
...
----------
Robert McHenry is former editor of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and is
the author of "How to Know."
/This is the same guy who called us the Faith-based encyclopedia and
compared us to a public toilet-
http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html
--Mark
"In each of these examples, a small and self-selected group convinces
itself not so much that it represents the greater world beyond the
computer screen but that it is in some ineffable way superior to it,
that it has transcended the need for the hard lessons the rest of us
have learned about how things actually work."
Can anyone say irony? The Encyclopedia Britannica uses an even smaller
number of people to write their articles. Through the years, the EB has
proven wrong in many of their editions. That they are more correct in
their latest works shows that they have the same issues as Wikipedia.
TBSDY