Replying from home, not the office, LOL.  You make a good point, John, about 
hard versus soft issues.  I'm not convinced that Wikipedia is equipped to do 
nuance very well although it might  present some very narrow technical or 
scientific issues acceptably.  I noticed some of that in the Wikipedia entry on 
political correctness, which didn't seem to have many shades of gray although it 
was addressing some social and/or political issues that may be controversial.  
I'm certainly not convinced everything it discussed in that entry was as 
clear cut as the multiple writers presented it to be.   Too many things were 
stated categorically without enough of what auditors refer to as "support."  And, 
of course, perhaps I see gray in some areas that others view as more black and 
white, or Right and Left, who knows.  

Although I've barely used it, I am glad to see others stating too that while 
they might look at Wikipedia's entries, and even use them as jumping off 
points (using some of the outside links or bibliographic entries), they would never 
cite it as a source.  I wouldn't either.  I would feel the same way even if I 
didn't work at GAO, which, of course, issues meticulously worded standards of 
evidence in its "Yellow Book" (Government Auditing Standards).

Interesting thoughts on Wikipedia here from those who have looked at it more 
than I, very useful comments here, thank you all!

Maarja

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance