Wikipedia vs wiki

Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:40:09 PST
Serious and reliable articles in Wikipedia now carry citations for the
statements made - and are quickly edited if anyone puts something on that is
unverifiable. As far as I can tell the problems seem to occur with stuff
about living people and recent, contentious, history (even less recent but
still contentious history). (Printed encyclopaedias can have problems in
these areas.)

Generally the problem with botanical Wikipedia pages is just a lack of
completeness - what is there is good. The PBS wiki clearly goes much further
than a general encyclopaedia ever could and, as it is maintained by a small
expert community, will always be a different category of resource !

Reply / forward from John Crellin the new bit of

-----Original Message-----
From: []
On Behalf Of Diane Whitehead
Sent: 22 February 2007 21:24
To: Pacific Bulb Society
Subject: Re: [pbs] Wikipedia vs wiki

I find Wikipedia an excellent "refresher" when I can't remember dates, but I
can't imagine anyone thinking they could use it as a reference - the
articles are all anonymous and can be modified by anyone.  Colleges usually
give incoming students a quick course in writing papers and what sources are
acceptable, so I would assume they would explain why Wikipedia is not.

One excellent thing our wiki does is to record each change, what it was, who
made it, and when.

Diane Whitehead

pbs mailing list

More information about the pbs mailing list