Re: Wikipedia

From: Jeff Sumner ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 10/22/05-03:35:54 PM Z
Message-id: <BF8028FA.9409%jdos2@mindspring.com>

Then a stub mentioning the chemicals, high quality papers, and pigments
lovingly applied it will (probably) be!

The "humor" (not anymore "Humour," read the chat) page is great, too.

Em 10/22/05 3:43 AM, "Katharine Thayer" <kthayer@pacifier.com> escrivou:

> Gordon J. Holtslander wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> there is nothing written on gum printing.
>>
>
> Hi Gord,
> I think you mentioned this once before, and I got the giggles thinking
> about all the gum printers correcting each others' text til the end of
> time. The thing about gum printing is that there is so little that's
> well enough established in a generalizable sense to be of use in an
> encyclopedia, that in a way I'm rather glad to hear that no one has
> attempted it. The less misinformation that's out in the world about gum
> printing, the better, as far as I'm concerned.
>
> My only experience with Wikipedia was during a discussion with my
> brother in law; to bolster his argument he sent me an entry from
> Wikipedia. It was a subject on which I have some expertise, and it was
> obvious from the first sentence that the person writing the entry in
> Wikipedia knew very little about what he was writing about and was just
> repeating misinformation he'd picked up somewhere.. So my first
> impression of the quality of the information offered in Wikipedia was
> not overly favorable, and I've never been tempted to go back and look at
> any more of it.
>
> Katharine
Received on Sat Oct 22 15:36:13 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 11/07/05-09:46:19 AM Z CST