News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Wired Editor Apologizes for Copying from Wikipedia in New... by norimaki on Wednesday June 24, 2009 @07:31PM (#672893)
Let's not pretend that 'experts' are supposed to know everything. If you went for a programming interview and were rejected because you didn't have all of the regex syntax on the tip of your tongue, would you feel the same way? I don't think it indicates a lack of knowledge or laziness. It's just an acknowledgment of the central role that Wikipedia plays in research these days combined with the ease of copy-paste functionality in word processing systems. Had the same thing happened twenty years ago with the Encyclopedia Britannica that might be a different story. But Anderson intended to rework the sections he copied and forgot to. Sloppy work, yes, but it's so easy to see how someone could make this mistake innocently.
Re:Wired Editor Apologizes for Copying from Wikipedia in New... by zimbabwe on Wednesday June 24, 2009 @10:04PM (#673041)
If I'm writing a book on a subject, I'm going to write it because I understand it well and think I have something interesting to say. I won't just pick something that I think makes money and then bullshit something into profitability.

Come to think of it, that's also how I look for the good startup companies amidst all the bad: When you find the ones run by people who understand what they're doing, you find a satisfaction in their output that you don't find elsewhere. 280North comes to mind, as does Contrast.io.

Re:Wired Editor Apologizes for Copying from Wikipedia in New... by buugs on Wednesday June 24, 2009 @07:38PM (#672899)
I have no problem researching topics with wikipedia, if it is pertinent information and you can read you should be able to find a better source.

Does not compare in anyway to an interview and previous knowledge.