----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>
It's a simple error that most proof-readers would
Well only if they can read Latin, which is not that usual these days.
>It looks right at first glance but is not. It is a
type of error.
No: the error is more subtle in that it may be 'dog Latin' i.e. an error in
common use rather like 'strictu dictu'*. How would the proof reader know
that? The problem is that it has been there for so long that it is
difficult to tell whether the Google search is turning up uses that have
actually been *caused* by Wikipedia, so that Wikipedia is actually degrading
human knowledge by introducing false information, in the manner of an urban
myth, or whether the error predates that. Either way the issue would have
to be noted in the article. I think it is beyond what simple proof-reading
would give you.
The obvious solution is to proof-read Wikipedia in a
Who is going to do that? It comes back to my earlier point: there simply
aren't enough people with the right knowledge to do this. There needs to be
some way of making Wikipedia more 'knowledge friendly', but hard to see how
that could be practically achieved.
*I have just noticed there is no entry on 'strictu dictu'!