On 24/10/2010 19:33, Austin Hair wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Anthonywikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Austin Hairadhair@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Anthonywikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hairadhair@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthonywikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM,wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: > On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote: >> Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance? > > Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The > information contained on the page could well be nonsense".
A better start would be to stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia.
Who on earth thinks an encyclopedia is an authoritative source?
How is that relevant?
You seemed to be saying that by calling it an encyclopedia, reliability is implied.
A higher degree of reliability is implied than is provided. I wouldn't go so far as to say that encyclopedias are generally authoritative, though.
You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject contradicts.
He is probably thinking about this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/
Actually I dug out an old 1999 CD version of Britannica the other week. *whispers* I was amazed as to how refreshing the articles are.