Well after that, I found that Wikipedia does have a 'seroconversion' article, but still they need to have link between seroconverting & seroconversion. This is just basic public health policy.
don't get me started on Wikipedia:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902
As a science teacher, I really like Wikipedia. I have found it very useful, and have also realized that not all traditional reference work is 100% accurate either. I think some studies have shown it just as accurate as other encyclopedias.
It's good for initial entry into a subject, kind of like what "Ask Jeeves" thought it was going to be, but it's certainly not to be taken as gospel, and the Village Voice specifically asked fact-checkers not to use it as such. I'm delighted that it exists, but I find myself wishing they'd do like the All Music Guide and pay recognized experts (or at least knowledgeables) in fields to fill in gaps and make it something appropriately Alexandrian for the Instant Information Age.
Well, clearly we disagree on this. I find AMG far less accuate than Wikipedia!
A valid point. AMG could stand to have fact-checkers and staff to respond to public submissions of info and corrections. The current process for correcting AMG errors is labrynthine and almost not worth it. But AMG's as close to a rock encyclopedia as we've got, and it has relatively few errors of fact as far as I've seen.
