except that there is. let's take an article cited, the ts eliot one. click on "discussion" and you'll get a run-down of issues with the article, click on "history" to get the change-log.
(i mean, i have a lot of other issues too. like, why is the ten year old only using wikipedia as a source? that school librarian has got to wonder why he or she is bothering to pay for freakin' expensive electronic encyclopedias & databases, let alone maintaining a paper one. why is it not okay for a source to be created by many people now, when that's basically how the oed was constructed? why do we think just because something's in print it's correct? there are errors in print encyclopedias all the time, and you're certainly not going to find a changelog there. and finally, what free web resource should we be using instead?)
me, i *heart* wikipedia for a quick overview. it gives me the outline and the keywords. or if i just want to know when eliot was born i can get that too. it's a jumping-off point. and that should be true of traditional encyclopedia articles as well. wikipedia's still in development, it is aware of its issues, and i'm not certain it's entirely fair to blame it for the way people use it. as it says in the faq: But Wikipedia cannot be perfect. There is almost certainly inaccurate information in it, somewhere, which has not yet been discovered to be wrong. Therefore, if you are using Wikipedia for important research or a school project, you should always verify the information somewhere else — just like you should with all sources.
i particularly like that final bit. darn right! and actually the entire school faq is worth a peek.
Where I get all defensive for a moment and then flame out quickly
(i mean, i have a lot of other issues too. like, why is the ten year old only using wikipedia as a source? that school librarian has got to wonder why he or she is bothering to pay for freakin' expensive electronic encyclopedias & databases, let alone maintaining a paper one. why is it not okay for a source to be created by many people now, when that's basically how the oed was constructed? why do we think just because something's in print it's correct? there are errors in print encyclopedias all the time, and you're certainly not going to find a changelog there. and finally, what free web resource should we be using instead?)
me, i *heart* wikipedia for a quick overview. it gives me the outline and the keywords. or if i just want to know when eliot was born i can get that too. it's a jumping-off point. and that should be true of traditional encyclopedia articles as well. wikipedia's still in development, it is aware of its issues, and i'm not certain it's entirely fair to blame it for the way people use it. as it says in the faq: But Wikipedia cannot be perfect. There is almost certainly inaccurate information in it, somewhere, which has not yet been discovered to be wrong. Therefore, if you are using Wikipedia for important research or a school project, you should always verify the information somewhere else — just like you should with all sources.
i particularly like that final bit. darn right! and actually the entire school faq is worth a peek.