Wikipedia

[PetrolTed]

Does it work for technical matters?

I've seen useful info for historical matters, but if there was a Wikipedia for say engine tuning, would it simply end up in a constant debate about whether any 'experts' who contributed were actually correct?

[anhamgrimmar]

i think the way wikipedia works, is thats there is never a 'finished' article, just one that has been agreed upon.

if you were to disagree, (and with something as contentious as engine tuning, several people would) then the article is still displayed, but flagged up as requiring an 'NPOV'(neutral point of view)

as an aside:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_tuning

[zaktoo]

I have my doubts about it from technical and other perspectives. For general information though, it will be and often is superb. The core problem as I see it is that all contributors are seen as "equals" and there is no one designated authorotarian figure per article - which is IMHO precisely what is needed.

My R0.02 ;-)

Ciao

Zak

[Trooper2]

I use Wikipedia for somethings, tend to use How Stuff Works for the technical bits however.

[url]www.howstuffworks.com/[/url]


I really like the concept behind Wikipedia.

[ErnestM]

There are some PHP style scripts out there that will also allow wiki-with-approval type documentation. In other words, you have a designated person as the arbitor of other's contributions (kind of a pass through "rubber stamp" sort of thing).

I'll see if I can find some examples so that it can show the general concept...

ErnestM

[Trooper2]

I think that's how "How Stuff Works" is organized.

[PetrolTed]

That makes sense.

[rude-boy]

I find PH the best place for info on any subject from crystal ornaments to car buying