I don't know what the consensus is today, but last time I checked, lots of people were dubious about Wikipedia. Lots of smart people said that mob-written content couldn't be trusted. And it's true, I have found mistakes, heard about agenda-driven edits, and recognize the weaknesses of the wiki model.
But you know what Wikipedia is the best at? Telling you if some vague concept you've heard about is really a "thing".
Let's take, for example, "workflow analysis". I ran into this term a few years ago, and I remember wondering whether it was a recognized technique or just words that someone put together, equivalent to, say, "playing banjo in the dark." So I looked it up in Google and saw there was a Wikipedia entry for it. Then I knew it was a field of human endeavor that was recognized by some set of people to be "A Thing".
But you know what Wikipedia is the best at? Telling you if some vague concept you've heard about is really a "thing".
Let's take, for example, "workflow analysis". I ran into this term a few years ago, and I remember wondering whether it was a recognized technique or just words that someone put together, equivalent to, say, "playing banjo in the dark." So I looked it up in Google and saw there was a Wikipedia entry for it. Then I knew it was a field of human endeavor that was recognized by some set of people to be "A Thing".
No comments:
Post a Comment