Serious and reliable articles in Wikipedia now carry citations for the statements made - and are quickly edited if anyone puts something on that is unverifiable. As far as I can tell the problems seem to occur with stuff about living people and recent, contentious, history (even less recent but still contentious history). (Printed encyclopaedias can have problems in these areas.) Generally the problem with botanical Wikipedia pages is just a lack of completeness - what is there is good. The PBS wiki clearly goes much further than a general encyclopaedia ever could and, as it is maintained by a small expert community, will always be a different category of resource ! Reply / forward from John Crellin http://www.floralwiki.co.uk/ the new bit of http://www.floralimages.co.uk/ -----Original Message----- From: pbs-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:pbs-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Diane Whitehead Sent: 22 February 2007 21:24 To: Pacific Bulb Society Subject: Re: [pbs] Wikipedia vs wiki I find Wikipedia an excellent "refresher" when I can't remember dates, but I can't imagine anyone thinking they could use it as a reference - the articles are all anonymous and can be modified by anyone. Colleges usually give incoming students a quick course in writing papers and what sources are acceptable, so I would assume they would explain why Wikipedia is not. One excellent thing our wiki does is to record each change, what it was, who made it, and when. Diane Whitehead _______________________________________________ pbs mailing list pbs@lists.ibiblio.org http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php