That's the problem. It appears to be useful, but the information is no more or less authoritative than something said by me.
I could write a Wiki entry on, for example, Durham, or where you lived in Japan, based entirely on what I know from your LJ. How would you know my entry was any good?
The entry on Torbay, for example, has a few errors I nearly fixed once, but my connection timed out (again). There is no way of gauging reliability, yet people link to it as an authoritative source. The contents could, and have been at times, complete falsehoods. Would you know?
A little more time, and a lot of Googling, will normally get you better info. Or just go into the local library and look throught he reference section. Interview on Radio 4 about it today, they're doing some stuff to make it better, but for as long as any fool can log in and 'correct' stuff without moderation, it'll be problematic.
no subject
I could write a Wiki entry on, for example, Durham, or where you lived in Japan, based entirely on what I know from your LJ. How would you know my entry was any good?
The entry on Torbay, for example, has a few errors I nearly fixed once, but my connection timed out (again). There is no way of gauging reliability, yet people link to it as an authoritative source. The contents could, and have been at times, complete falsehoods. Would you know?
A little more time, and a lot of Googling, will normally get you better info. Or just go into the local library and look throught he reference section. Interview on Radio 4 about it today, they're doing some stuff to make it better, but for as long as any fool can log in and 'correct' stuff without moderation, it'll be problematic.
Ah well, nice idea, just a little too idealistic.