Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
Wikipedia as Primary Research Resource is an automatic fail here.
|
Yes, of course it is. But we continue to have serious technical issues with this person. I don't know if it's a second-language issue (but purportedly, he's an upper-level Harvard grad...so...???), or what, but it's like sending a message out into space, and what comes back seems utterly unrelated to what you've sent. Beyond even non-sequiturs. I mean..here's an example. We send out instructions that tell clients to a) click the blue FILE NAMES below my sig, and download them, and b) to click a link for Dropbox, and to download the files that they see there. What did I get, today?
What? What?
Quote:
A few years back, I attended a panel on writing at the New York Comic Con, and panelist Tamora Pierce, bestselling YA noveleist said "By all means look at Wikipedia, but it should not be the only thing you look at." She was spot on.
I'll point people at Wikipedia articles where I have enough subject knowledge to consider them accurate. Subjects with independently verifiable facts and figures are reasonably safe. Anything subject like politics and religion goes downhill fast, unless you are amused by watching partisans deface each other's posts.
And I'll avoid the company of anyone who thinks Wikipedia is the sworn on gospel. (Sworn at would be a better descriptor.)
______
Dennis
|
Anyone who thinks that Wikipedia has value, beyond VERY simple things, like, "How many episodes are in show X?," deserves what they get. But the inability to communicate is just driving me ape***.
We had a similar problem with the FIRST batch of files we asked him to DL. Again, three docx and two PDFs. I just do NOT know what to do. I've used images, arrows...the last time this happened, I received a lecture from him on why "people who make instructions suck at it," basically.
I suspect I should have sent him on down the road, and I want to kick myself for it.
Hitch