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.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
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.