Peer Review: Wikipedia Strip Club Article

Do serious readers trust Wikipedia? It may be useful as a general guide or a link to reliable information, but a lot of Wikipedia's stuff is wrong.

Not going to go there, Dude. Has nothing to do with what I posted.

No need to bash Wikipedia. Independent studies have repeatedly affirmed that Wikipedia is RIGHT almost all the time. Sometimes the style leaves a bit to be desired, and when somebody puts something wrong on it, somebody else comes along and corrects it. Occasionally verbal fights occur and the Management has to resolve the argument.

Wikipedia is one of the true gems of the internet. But as Wallanon correctly asserts, that has absolutely nothing to do with his post. So let's all get on board the "Review the Article He Wrote" bandwagon, OK?

Wallanon-
I do a number of things on Wikipedia, although lately, it seems like all I do is fix spelling. I'm not sure what the purpose of the peer review is and it seems a little beyond me, just reading it over. Are you trying to make it a featured article? I'd love to see it, but I'm not sure it will happen.

Superdude-
If there is something wrong about an article, you have the power to change it. I've never understood people who want to bash Wikipedia, and people in other forums I appear in have the same attitude. Of course, you got to put in a little effort in doing research, but even simple stuff like making sure things are spelled right need to be done.

Dan - A little while back I put the article up for "Good Article" status, which I figured was good enough. The guy who reviewed it used the "Featured Article" criteria instead. It was nowhere near FA at the time, but I just said what the heck and kept writing stuff in once I saw the feedback. Peer review is basically an optional pre-beating before submitting an article for the full-on FAC smackdown. It's a toss up on whether it gets there without big changes like splitting it between U.S. and rest of world info...plus a little copy editing.

Not sure why I didn't think of this sooner...

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl…

The article has exactly zero inline references, but it's a starting point.

The article is a comprehensive and well researched discussion of our important hobby. A suggestion: If it wouldn't bog things down, maybe some mention should be made, in the legal analysis, of the use of "secondary effects," as part of the effort to restrict the locations of clubs and drive them out of business.

And you might want to add this book in the reference section.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_5…

Thanks. Found it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=bM6gcaL…

It's amazing how many guys are out there claiming they opened the first modern gentlemen's club. Maybe they should all put on some boxing gloves and duke it out.

Specific mention of "secondary effects". Check.