http://kairosnews.org/taxonomy/term/388/feed/%2A The taxonomy view with a depth of 0. en http://kairosnews.org/wikipedia-the-evolution-of-information-v Technology News has a nicely detailed article up called <a href="http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/53782.html">Wikipedia and the Trust Factor</a>. While the issues raised and the points made here won't be new to old wikians, it's a fair summary of some of the problems and attitudes that span across the wiki continuum. The author identifies some of the famous hoaxes at Wikipedia (including the one following in the wake of Colbert's suggestion that 'pedians alter the elephants page to show the trebling of the pachyderm population). I can definitely see how discussions about the Wikipedia have become somewhat trite and cliche these days. Can anyone seriously posit that the Wikipedia is a hopeless mess and the Encyclopedia Britannica totally unbiased? Does anyone still buy that cliche that "any 6-year old could put up a definition of nuclear physics"? I find that more and more of my scholarly colleagues, including ones I would place on the right, are referring to wikipedia pages more and more in their discourse. Of course, I generally start any research project by first seeing what's available on the 'pedia, though (unlike too many!) don't generally stop there. http://kairosnews.org/wikipedia-the-evolution-of-information-v#comments ethics intimidating nose sizes knights who say nii reliability wikipedia wikis Sun, 22 Oct 2006 12:28:01 -0400 platypus matt 4926 at http://kairosnews.org