Since you mentioned the placidness on the list... :-) Well just kidding, but there's a huge grayzone between generally agreed-upon facts and opinion-based articles. Just think of the ever-lasting re-interpretation of history...
I too appreciate Wikipedia for a primer on most subjects. 80-90% is great, imho. Jostein Who will not stray into global warming this time... :-) 2008/7/18 Doug Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Anthony Farr wrote: > >> * Being the lazybones I am, my fact-checking is often done through >> Wikipedia, in spite of that source's low standing in the eyes of >> intellectual snobs. 80% to 90% reliability is good enough for me >> considering the speed and ease of access that Wikipedia affords. > > My experience has been that Wikipedia is reasonably accurate for those > things that are factual and verifiable. For those things that are > opinion-based or judgement-based, forget it. :-) > > -- > Thanks, > DougF (KG4LMZ) > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
