I'd say it is a "site that falls on its face when tested". I ran several
searches in it for minor articles in Wikipedia, in some cases the ads that
came up were relevant but there was no relevant information. Then I tried
their Easter Island article, which in my view gives more info than we do on
some of the fringe theories "The stones were moved from quarry to ahu using
ancient secrets known to the Lemurians, perhaps involving levitation or the
secret for liquifying stone." And omits some of the info we have as to how
archaeologists believe the statues were carved.
WereSpielChequers
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:37:29 -0500
From: "kgnpaul(a)gmail.com" <kgnpaul(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l]
Encyclopedia.com
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <4a6a61dc.c5c2f10a.6d9e.5d58(a)mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I think that I was taught in school to never use any encyclopedia as a
reference work, and that others should learn the same instead
-- Sent from my Palm Pre
wjhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
About us
http://www.encyclopedia.com/about.aspx
"Other Web sites that allow anyone to rewrite reference entries can be
fun. But when you need credible information from reliable sources you
can cite,
Encyclopedia.com (
www.encyclopedia.com) is the place to go. "
"Encyclopedia.com is owned and operated by HighBeam Research. "
What do others think. Is this site merely another fluffy, we're better
than you, site that falls on its face when tested?
Will Johnson