<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Switched - Comments for Wikipedia More Accurate Than Britannica?</title>
<link>http://www.switched.com/2007/07/24/wikipedia-more-accurate-than-britannica/</link>
<description>Switched Comments for Wikipedia More Accurate Than Britannica?</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Wikipedia More Accurate Than Britannica?]]></title><link>http://www.switched.com/2007/07/24/wikipedia-more-accurate-than-britannica/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.switched.com/2007/07/24/wikipedia-more-accurate-than-britannica/</guid><description><![CDATA[Yes, there is a network that will block posts made to Wikipedia if the content offered does not match their belief systems or experience.  Worse, it is an occult network, where other people's mere thoughts are typed into the website.  It's their member right to block 'log in' posts, but such blocking should not be permanent.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Marcia Lynn Neil]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Feb 27th 2008 2:37PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Wikipedia More Accurate Than Britannica?]]></title><link>http://www.switched.com/2007/07/24/wikipedia-more-accurate-than-britannica/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.switched.com/2007/07/24/wikipedia-more-accurate-than-britannica/</guid><description><![CDATA[The very nature of a site where almost anyone can add information causes it to be less authoritative than a site that is controlled by a board of editors and written by scholars.  Let's just use our heads here.  A quick overview of a topic can be found in Wikipedia, and there are more topics there that don't fit into the scope of an encyclopedia--that's the value I see in it.  As for accuracy, I will never trust it after seeing how easily someone can go in and change it.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Bonnie]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Jun 26th 2009 11:52AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Wikipedia More Accurate Than Britannica?]]></title><link>http://www.switched.com/2007/07/24/wikipedia-more-accurate-than-britannica/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.switched.com/2007/07/24/wikipedia-more-accurate-than-britannica/</guid><description><![CDATA[Up to 12 months ago we financially contributed funds to Wikipedia but no more, for we thought that it was a good idea and where its thinking was in unison with our own at that time - using knowledge for the good of humankind. When we as novices tried to place our Swiss charity within Wikipedia we were absolutely savaged by the editors. They in fact blocked our right of reply, which is documented by themselves.<br>Thereafter we even sent our registration documents via email to the then executive director of Wikimedia, the holding organization, to prove that our international group was registered as a Swiss charity. He did nothing at all. A few months later he resigned with another top Wikimedia executive, 'Jimbo's second in command.  The greatest problem with Wikipedia that we now find is that they are highly selective in who should place information and where therefore they will never really have a web-based encyclopaedia that is unbiased and totally factual. It is totally at the whims of the few enlightened ones who control what should be a great reference. Unfortunately we now see that it is not.<br><br>For anyone interested further on how Wikipedia editors work, the full account including all emails is now posted on our website within our scientific discovery newsletter - <a href="http://www.thewif.org.uk/version2/nlett/class/main0.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.thewif.org.uk/version2/nlett/class/main0.html</a>. Overall, it is time we feel that Wikipedia looked internally at itself and that they concluded that they have major problems with the way they treat new entrants. This analysis should especially be directed towards the attitude of their editors, who remove the right of reply and delete super-quick for reasons not based on evidence but only on hearsay. By the way also, the Wikipedian Editor Zoe who first blocked us and the initial instigator of all the basic trouble, fell out with 'Jimbo' and where she as well left a few months later. Apparently she had made a vendetta against a certain professor according to 'Jimbo's' opinion. Thereafter she took her bat and ball homey and has never been seen since. I believe she also threatened the embattled professor at the time - the web link is <a href="http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:dUfUXyA24wwJ:www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Zoe+zoe+wikipedia+professor+change+wikipedia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk" rel="nofollow">http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:dUfUXyA24wwJ:www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Zoe+zoe+wikipedia+professor+change+wikipedia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk</a>. <br><br>Dr. David Hill<br>Chief Executive<br>World Innovation Foundation Charity<br>Bern, Switzerland<br>]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[david hill]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Jul 29th 2007 6:09PM</pubDate></item></channel></rss>
