Ray Saintonge wrote
Claims about whether Wikipedia is reliable or unreliable are most often speculative.
Wikipedia is unreliable. You can't settle a bet with Wikipedia. If you actually needed to buy Britannica in the past, you still do. The wriggle-room between 'unreliable' and 'useless' turns out to be so large we have shoehorned a multimillion-article reference site in there.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote
Claims about whether Wikipedia is reliable or unreliable are most often speculative.
Wikipedia is unreliable. You can't settle a bet with Wikipedia. If you actually needed to buy Britannica in the past, you still do. The wriggle-room between 'unreliable' and 'useless' turns out to be so large we have shoehorned a multimillion-article reference site in there.
So then, what is the most reliable way of measuring reliability?
Ec
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote
Claims about whether Wikipedia is reliable or unreliable are most often speculative.
Wikipedia is unreliable. You can't settle a bet with Wikipedia. If you actually needed to buy Britannica in the past, you still do. The wriggle-room between 'unreliable' and 'useless' turns out to be so large we have shoehorned a multimillion-article reference site in there.
Indeed, the wiggle room is so large that nearly all published material fits in it! Britannica not least---you've certainly never been able to cite "Britannica said it" as reliable evidence if you're writing something like an academic paper, and yet it manages to have proven quite useful over a long period of time.
-Mark