On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 09:12:33PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > >> > >>wikipedia is just a pile of junk. everyone can put in it, and > >>unfortunately do. > > > >Meanwhile, in print encyclopedias, I see that with restricted writing > >access and strict editing processes there are typically systemic biases > >and subtler mistakes that are much easier to overlook -- and the mistakes > >not only persist until the next edition, but often exist for decades, > >whereas finding a mistake in Wikipedia is fixable within five minutes. > > and 3 others are added.
Do you really think such absurd exaggeration makes a valid point? > > >The key is that an encyclopedia should never be the *end* of your > >research. It's basically just a place to look for key terms to research > > actually what i do - to get the first glance on subject, THEN checking > more precisely. > > but quite often it's crap even at the first glance I guess your definition of "quite often" must be much more permissive than mine -- or you just have a real knack for finding bad information. -- Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ] Albert Camus: "An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself."
pgpsLtrKDyTJD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
