Jon Binkley wrote:
wrote:


I don't quite understand the concept of an "encyclopedia that can be
edited ..by (anyone)".


Apparently not...

OK, how's this: "I don't understand the concept of anyone TRUSTING a
website that can be "edited" by anyone, with no verification, no cites,
no footnoting, no sources.

Very impressive, but why are you telling us all this?

Uh, 'cause this is a beer newsgroup (don't think brewery history is OT)
and it was a response to a proposed Wikibraeu site. Wasn't trying to
"impress" anyone (to me, it was equivelent to reading the definition of
a word out of a dictionary).

If you
know so much and care so passionately about Schaefer,

I don't really know or care much about Schaefer (certainly never found
anything in their beers to be passionate about)- but I am interested in
accuracy and facts. It took me about 60 seconds to find the correct
information on Schaefer in my various beer books and articles I've
collected over the years. I was only using the Schaefer entry as an
example of why I think the concept of "anyone" being able to edit an
"encyclopedia" is defective. I'm sure there are tons of other entries
were people who know the subject can pick it apart. As such, I'd be
suspicious of any article.

go
back to Wikipedia and correct the bloody entry.

Why? So some one else can "re-edit" it based on their prejudices and
misinformation? Seems to me with a real "editor", whose job it is to
fact-check (after all, I could have made up all those "facts" I cited
without credit) is necessary for an encyclopedia to be any good.

Now do you understand the concept?

Oh, I understand it- just think it's worthless for research.