[AUUG-Talk]: Personal Contributions - AUUG's Value Add

[Norberto Meijome]

On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 02:27:21 +1000
Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au> wrote:

> Actually, the point is that Wikipedia is very good for
> non-controversial topics, like much of maths and science, but is less
> reliable for topics with axe-grinding people (eg much of philosophy

indeed...but, at the same time, i suppose that for the 'controversial' topics
you wouldn't want only one view (the editor's) , right?  :) Less traditional
sources of information have their valid place in the big scheme of things, but
I am not going to get into politics or religion or anything like that. 

Even in the IT  world, you wouldn't go to Microsoft to find out if the latest
and most glorious  version of Exchange is suitable for my company's needs,
because I know the answers I will get. Therefore the need to look into other
sources, possibly less reliable, yes, but that would show you different angles
on the marketing spin.

Anyway...not rocket science ;)
B
_________________________
{Beto|Norberto|Numard} Meijome

"The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head.
Put it in his hand and it's goodbye to the Bill of Rights."
   H.L. Mencken

I speak for myself, not my employer. Contents may be hot. Slippery when wet.
Reading disclaimers makes you go blind. Writing them is worse. You have been
Warned.