Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 4217064" data-attributes="member: 3400">One would hope that we could teach researchers to be savvy enough to understand the value of a source with some authority control, that can actually stand behind the research into its articles. No popularly edited source is going to come close to that any time soon.But, I do agree that wikipedia's whole relevancy issue is elitist and foolish. What articles are probably the most reliable ones on wikipedia? The trivial ones that geeks have the time to lovingly fill out based on their vast  knowledge of their hobbies. Why? Because that is an area where large numbers of internet posters can claim to have some authority.So wikipedia wants to be a general resource? So what? I'm not going to find articles on "Keep on the Borderlands" when I search for the molecular weight of boron or on the climate of Burkina Faso... at least not if wiki is well and properly indexed. There are no printing costs, so that issue is gone. All I have to worry about, for the most part, is storage capacity and efficient retrieval of information. Neither of those are so insurmountable that wiki has to limit its scope to things that are "notable".</blockquote>