Keith Old wrote:
Folks,
According to John Graham-Cumming, Wikipedia is a better resource for
researchers than Britannica.
http://newstilt.com/notthatkindofdoctor/news/wikipedia-trumps-britannia
<snip>
Initially, I’d find myself double-checking facts on
Wikipedia by looking in
Britannica. I’d read that
Boltzmann<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Boltzmann> died
on September 5, 1906 on Wikipedia and jump to Britannica to check the
date<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/72401/Ludwig-Eduard-Boltz…
.
After weeks of doing this I realized that Britannica wasn’t helping. Any
errors I found on Wikipedia were because I was reading original source
material (see for example this
correction<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miller%E2%80%93Urey…
).
Yes, this is an interesting testimonial. For me the turning point was
the realisation (this was in relation to history) that I was finding
errors in academic writing, in compiling and using Wikipedia, about as
often as finding errors in Wikipedia itself. Though that depends a bit
where you look on the site.
Charles