On 6/2/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)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.