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
--
geni