NP Wikipedia

[Carvill John]

Wikipedia can be a great starting point for getting up to speed on a new 
subject, as long as you remember to bring your pinch of salt. If you're 
*really* interested in something, you'll want to avoid relying on just 
wikipedia, obviously.

It can be a very useful resource, and I do use it, but it's still dominated 
by nerds and there's a vast army of pedants and nitpickers who seem to 
literally base their whole lives around tidying up 'mistakes' and have a 
wildly over-inflated snese of themselves and wikipedia's place in the 
general scheme of things.

Declaration of interest: I got badly burned when a friend suggested I amend 
a certain, very thin page, on a topic he knew I had an interest in and, 
crucially, love for. My entry got wiped out almost immediately as it 
constituted 'new research' even though it was neither reseacrch nor new, but 
was in fact just an attempt to put some meat on the bones.

Wikipedia seems determined to stick to plain 'facts' and unlike some 
encyclopedias it is trying to compete with, does not allow 'essays' or 
discursive entries which are, of course, a big part of what reading an entry 
on someone or something is about. This seems to be an attempt to keep 
contributors' opinions and personalities out of it but even if we agree (and 
I do not) that's a good idea, I don't think it works since the pedantry, 
prissiness and downright nerdiness shines through again and again. It was 
incredibly galling to have my entry removed by someone who had no interest 
in, knowledge of, or passion for teh subject, just because it violated some 
'rules' which he, in his barrack room lawyer way, most certainly did have a 
passion for.

Cheers
JC

_________________________________________________________________
Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win a free 
trip! 
http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline