[FFmpeg-cvslog] [ffmpeg.org]: r300 - trunk/src/contact

[Diego Biurrun]

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:01:28PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 08:13:26PM +0000, Robert Swain wrote:
> > 2009/2/25 Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at>:
> > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 08:56:57PM +0100, superdump wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Log:
> > >
> > >> The thread hijacking article on wikipedia was removed because it didn't contain
> > >> any citations.
> > >
> > > ROTFL
> > > next they remove the article on evolution because it doesnt contain a
> > > citation of the bible
> > 
> > That was my thinking too, though worded differently. Why can't
> > wikipedia be _the_ point of reference? Why does everything have to be
> > cited? 
> 
> Thats because wiki isnt [...]

Your habit of referring to Wikipedia as "wiki" makes as much sense
as referring to ffmpeg as "mpeg" or "software".

> i mean if i want to know something about chemistry id ask a chemist or
> read a book/paper writen by a chemist.

Unfortunately, in my experience, these books come with a set of errors
of their own and the amount of errors they contain is no less than
Wikipedia, on the contrary.

Note that I base my judgement on Wikipedia articles and books about math
and computer science, but quality varies greatly among fields AFAICT.

> iam not sure why people think this is going to work out in the long run,
> already now if i out of boredom read a wiki article where i either am the
> expert of the field or simply compare it just to the german wiki article
> i often find very serious errors.

I'm under the impression that the quality of the German Wikipedia is
rather good, but I have no hard facts...

> wiki needs something like peer review by real experts before information is
> made available. Like we do with reviewing patches before commiting ...

http://citizendium.org/

.. not much progress so far ..

Diego