In article , wrote:
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.

You and me both. The wiki concept can work when dealing
with opinions, or when used by a subset of people who have
a focussed interest and who use the thing properly. But
it's not much better than relying on something like USENET
for any given general topic. Lots of chaff to serach through
for the wheat.

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.

Exactly.
--
Joel Plutchak "If you got the grits, serve 'em!" - Stanley Crouch
plutchak at [...]