[Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate

[????]

On 24/10/2010 20:10, geni wrote:
> On 24 October 2010 19:59, Anthony<wikimail at inbox.org>  wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:53 PM, ????<wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk>  wrote:
>>> On 24/10/2010 19:33, Austin Hair wrote:
>>>> 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/
>>
>> Even if you ignore the flaws in the Nature study and equate
>> errors-per-article with reliability, it still found that Wikipedia
>> contained more errors-per-article than Britannica.
>
>
> Remember though Britannica is meant to be the best of the best in
> terms of encyclopedias .

I should hope so. The paper copy I bought in 1980 cost almost £1000. 30 
years on I have every confidence that the articles won't have have 
random "was a homo fag" comments inserted into them, and the articles on 
Aristotle and Maths not much changed. OTOH the one on Beruit is probably 
changed out of all recognition, and there'll be a few extra Presidents 
of the USA.


It is also a bit useless for doing ctrl-C ctrl-V on though.


> So unless you are going to define
> "encyclopedia" as "Encyclopedia Britannica" you have to accept that
> works with lower levels of reliability qualify as encyclopedias.


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.

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.