20 References That Aren’t Wikipedia

Alison says on September 13th, 2007 at 8:16 am

There’s a second c in Encyclopaedia, esp if people are going to Google it.

Chanio says on September 19th, 2007 at 12:56 am

I don’t see fair the way that people is actually refering to Wikipedia.-

What should we expect when very few people wants to help making it a more ‘neutral’ place of communication? Everybody should be involved in some way or another.

I guess I should first try to help before underrating its value. Its value is such as any other non-profitable project done with the help of common people. And what is more, with good intentions and results. But there are a lot of ill intended people sucking their efforts. And I am not only refering to the commercial competence and the world’s dictators that deny what is written.

Last year I had a very interesting 1 hour historical review about the creation of Didderot’s first Encyclopedia at BBC’s ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/help/podcasting.shtml ) ‘In Our Time’ Podcast. A round table of schollar experts in the subject discussed how it was assembled without knowing how to continue during 10 years of good intentioned subscriptors. Their main ‘black box’ consisted of rewriting ’subversively’ all the prestablished concepts about the world with some new revolutionary ideas (the future French Revolution). The project was self-sustained during their last years, without the publisher, because of its content and its extension.

What would have happened if the Church had succeeded in finishing that long time enterprise?

Is Wikipedia going to become, one day, the most trustable encyclopedia or perish by being bought by one of our ‘eternal’ benefactors?