On 6/2/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I essentially agree. Some people still argue that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. On the other hand "Scientific American" for this month used [[Sudoku]] as a reference in an article on the same subject.
A good example - it depends how you use Wikipedia whether you would call it a "reliable source". If it makes a definitive, unsourced claim, I would not call it reliable. If it provides the source further upstream, and you check them out, it's a very useful source.
Diferent sources will have different levels of reliability for different types of information. It's ultimately up to the user to exercise critical thinking in making such evaluations, not us.
Yep.
Steve