On 24/10/2010 21:12, geni wrote:
On 24 October 2010 20:58,
????<wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Its not a question of lower levels of reliability
it is a question of
the absence of reliability, the fact that one can never be sure that
what one is reading is correct, an honest mistake, or something inserted
to push some agenda.
And how does that differ from every other document written by human beings ever?
Next to the EB we have a French encyclopaedia. It
is much less in depth
but it is still accurate in what it has to say on the subjects it
covers, and again I don't have to worry about whether some one just
added nonsense to the article on Maurice Jarre.
You've just defined the New Columbia Encyclopedia as not an
encyclopedia (see
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/08/29/050829ta_talk_alford ).
And then well consider this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhine#Length
Oh well that's OK then. One Encyclopaedia puts an fake entry into the
work about a fictitious person (born in bangs, died in an explosion,
whilst working for combustible), and that absolutely justifies having a
site that boasts of containing the worlds knowledge, where every page
can be turned on its head from one page request to the next.
Whatever was I thinking? Of course the vandalism, POV pushing, and plain
old altering of pages to 'win' an argument in the pub or the David Ike
forum, is exactly the same as what goes on at the New Columbia Encyclopedia.