Hello,
A shortish while ago, an at times heated (or, at least, tepid) discussion
raged concerning terroir. Amongst sources cited were the wikipedia, in this
case, the English version. However, those of us who not only speak broken
English, but also broken French, will recognise that there are differences
in how terroir is defined and described - the English, notably, passing
traditon as a part of terroir.
Looking into the passage on Pinot Gris, a lengthy and very unsubstantiated
explanation on how Pinot Gris got to Alsace from Hungary is, in fact,
misleading in several ways (Pinot Gris did not appear in Alsace until c.
1750).
In the entry on Syrah, it is correctly pointed out that Syrah in no way was
brought to Rhone from the Orient by the crusading knight Gaspard de
Sterimberg - however, it is not mentioned that this is because the good
knight was, in fact, involved in the Albigensian crusade and never left what
is today France. (Nor did he in fact build the chapel on the top of the
Hermitage hill, said chapel being documented more than a houndred years
before he set up store there, or so it would appear).
So, how about you? Do you use the wikipedia? Do you trust in it? Do you help
in correcting and enlarge it?

Just out of curiosity, you see.

Cheers

Nils

On 2008-09-21 07:37:22 -0700, "Nils Gustaf Lindgren"
> said:

> Hello,
> A shortish while ago, an at times heated (or, at least, tepid)
> discussion raged concerning terroir. Amongst sources cited were the
> wikipedia, in this case, the English version. However, those of us who
> not only speak broken English, but also broken French, will recognise
> that there are differences in how terroir is defined and described -
> the English, notably, passing traditon as a part of terroir.
> Looking into the passage on Pinot Gris, a lengthy and very
> unsubstantiated explanation on how Pinot Gris got to Alsace from
> Hungary is, in fact, misleading in several ways (Pinot Gris did not
> appear in Alsace until c. 1750).
> In the entry on Syrah, it is correctly pointed out that Syrah in no way
> was brought to Rhone from the Orient by the crusading knight Gaspard de
> Sterimberg - however, it is not mentioned that this is because the good
> knight was, in fact, involved in the Albigensian crusade and never left
> what is today France. (Nor did he in fact build the chapel on the top
> of the Hermitage hill, said chapel being documented more than a
> houndred years before he set up store there, or so it would appear).
> So, how about you? Do you use the wikipedia? Do you trust in it? Do you
> help in correcting and enlarge it?
>
> Just out of curiosity, you see.
>
> Cheers
>
> Nils

I use wiki often, but take many things with the proverbial grain of
salt. I don't help in correcting it, as if it is within my area of
expertise, I don't need to consult it, so I don't usually find anything
that I know to be false. (and I would prefer not to add my own
ignorance to someone else's)

I use wikipedia quite a bit and would trust it just about as much as I
would trust anything else, i.e. with a fair degree of scepticism. I
try to judge from the general style and standard of the article, and
if the information is important to me I would always try to find a
corroborating source. At least errors in wikipedia are easy to fix.
Dead tree sources may as well be tablets of stone when it comes to
correction, and even blunders on non-wiki websites can be difficult to
get corrected.

I have corrected errors in wikipedia on a number of occasions - always
things that are clearly wrong and easy to correct - I have not written
any substantial pieces of text myself. And I would strongly urge
others to make corrections. It annoys me when I read someone
complaining in some forum or other about specific errors in wikipedia,
when they could have fixed the article themselves in less time than it
took them to complain.

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

On Sep 21, 12:40�pm, Steve Slatcher > wrote:
> I use wikipedia quite a bit and would trust it just about as much as I
> would trust anything else, i.e. with a fair degree of scepticism. �I
> try to judge from the general style and standard of the article, and
> if the information is important to me I would always try to find a
> corroborating source. �At least errors in wikipedia are easy to fix.
> Dead tree sources may as well be tablets of stone when it comes to
> correction, and even blunders on non-wiki websites can be difficult to
> get corrected. �
>
> I have corrected errors in wikipedia on a number of occasions - always
> things that are clearly wrong and easy to correct - I have not written
> any substantial pieces of text myself. And I would strongly urge
> others to make corrections. �It annoys me when I read someone
> complaining in some forum or other about specific errors in wikipedia,
> when they could have fixed the article themselves in less time than it
> took them to complain.
>
> --
> Steve Slatcherhttp://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

Similar to my feelings. I occasionally fix obvious mistakes. I don't
regard anything as definitive, but it's a source (and better articles
offer references).

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:40:17 +0100, Steve Slatcher
> wrote:

>It annoys me when I read someone
>complaining in some forum or other about specific errors in wikipedia,
>when they could have fixed the article themselves in less time than it
>took them to complain.

That wasn't aimed at you Nils, BTW. I think the examples you gave
would have taken quite a bit of effort to fix in an appropriate
manner.

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

> That wasn't aimed at you Nils, BTW. I think the examples you gave
> would have taken quite a bit of effort to fix in an appropriate
> manner.

No offence taken - I tend to agree with Ronin about not adding my ignorance
to that of others. I did endeavour to correct the entry on Pinot Gris (I
have spent considerable time on this) but gave it up. Correcting wikipedia
is not all that straight forward, and I would have liked a few more
corroborating sources.

Cheers

Nils