>> The facts show that "good enough" tends to be an issue, a sign that a
>> approval process for entries is still needed.
> Or more editors... all of the faults you found can be corrected by
> clicking the "edit this page" link at the top of the relevant page. You
> don't even need to create an account.
While I feel this thread may be shut down soon, I feel it's important in
general to many of the folks on this list. Not all of us have the years
of experience that folks like dhan has. Many of us are somewhat new to
Unix and need all the help we can get. Accurate help. What this thread
has taught me is that Wikipedia is NOT a good source for facts. It can
be a source to use in starting a search but not as a final answer. There
apparently isn't and never will be a final answer.
Most folks looking for information are not going to in any way shape or
form understand Wikipedia's methods. And without a disclaimer at the top
of each page most folks will take it as factual. This is bad. It tends
to run urban legends into a formalized sport. I wonder how many middle
and high school teachers are allowing it as sources to papers. :(
As to more editors, there's a diminishing supply of good editors who
work for free and have the time and inclination to do it. (As to the
fellow doing mil docs and his comments about rather having nails in his
eyes, been there!) And a big supply of mis-informed, with an agenda,
let's have some fun folks who will be more than willing to write and
edit documents. Ignoring human nature is not a way to run a reference