On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Austin
Hair<adhair(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:34 PM,
Anthony<wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin
Hair<adhair(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony<wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM,<wiki-list(a)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.