Research is not what we compete with. Research is not encyclopaedic either.
The research I refer to compared a set of subjects and compared those in
several sources... Then again why bore you with information you already
Cherry picking an article from Brittanica is wonderful, it "proves" your
point, it however fails to convince.
Your God or mine, the fact is that Wikipedia is a most relevant source.
Given your complaint about the John Dee article, there is an opportunity
for you. You claim to know the subject matter.
On 5 April 2015 at 12:06, Lilburne <lilburne(a)tygers-of-wrath.net> wrote:
On 05/04/2015 06:36, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Reliable is not an absolute. Wikipedia is in the final analysis an
encyclopaedia. It is not original research.
One can indeed engage in original research by cherry picking the sources.
Studies have indicated that
Wikipedia is as reliable as its competitors.
Nonsense. Reliability has only ever been checked in the case of well
knowledge (where it was found to have 30% more errors), and highly
It has not been checked over the millions of articles that are neither of
Take the WP article on John Dee and compare it to the Britannica article.
article is both readable and well rounded. The WP article is a rambling
mess that tries
to present Dee the Mathematician, Scientist and natural philospher, but is
at every turn by those that want John Dee to be foremost the magician and
Perhaps in the end Dee the mathematician wins out, but it is a close run
one has to pour over the stilted language and mish mash of thought
Ironically enough many of the sources used to promote Dee the magician are
promoting Dee the mathematician.
I think you have it backward. Given that Wikipedia is best of breed,
do care about Wikipedia Zero.
God help us if that is the case. Fortunately there are far more
informative and reliable
sites about then wikipedia. Unfortunately they tend not to be on the first
page of a
search engine's results.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/