<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: I&#8217;m a Wiki-Fiddler</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.tompreuss.com/2005/10/19/im-a-wiki-fiddler/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.tompreuss.com/2005/10/19/im-a-wiki-fiddler/</link>
	<description>I&#039;ll keep guessing, you keep checking...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 04:47:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stu</title>
		<link>http://www.tompreuss.com/2005/10/19/im-a-wiki-fiddler/comment-page-1/#comment-11885</link>
		<dc:creator>Stu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2005 23:08:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tompreuss.com/?p=125#comment-11885</guid>
		<description>I like this comment from slashdot:
&lt;i&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;it is the fault of the &#039;hapless individual&#039; if they rely dogmatically on an editable webpage; more so since it&#039;s so easy to cross-check facts on the web once you know what they are. If you search for a fact from wikipedia, it should - other than in the most obscure areas - be findable on the web, as simply as googling for the fact.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/i&gt;
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=165699&amp;cid=13824939

That is exactly how I feel about the wikipedia.

Don&#039;t get me wrong, I love wiki&#039;s to death (and the machines they usually bring down with them), but trying to argue accuracy with such a dynamic system is pointless.  Every single page, with some minor exceptions, is open to anyone&#039;s interpretation.  If you don&#039;t like the look of an article, change it.  If it says something negative about your beliefs, change it.  If you want to say something bad about someone else&#039;s beliefs... change it?

The wiki should be a starting point, not an ending one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like this comment from slashdot:<br />
<i><br />
<blockquote>it is the fault of the &#8216;hapless individual&#8217; if they rely dogmatically on an editable webpage; more so since it&#8217;s so easy to cross-check facts on the web once you know what they are. If you search for a fact from wikipedia, it should &#8211; other than in the most obscure areas &#8211; be findable on the web, as simply as googling for the fact.</p></blockquote>
<p></i><br />
<a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=165699&#038;cid=13824939" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=165699&#038;cid=13824939</a></p>
<p>That is exactly how I feel about the wikipedia.</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t get me wrong, I love wiki&#8217;s to death (and the machines they usually bring down with them), but trying to argue accuracy with such a dynamic system is pointless.  Every single page, with some minor exceptions, is open to anyone&#8217;s interpretation.  If you don&#8217;t like the look of an article, change it.  If it says something negative about your beliefs, change it.  If you want to say something bad about someone else&#8217;s beliefs&#8230; change it?</p>
<p>The wiki should be a starting point, not an ending one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

