Keith Old wrote: > Folks, > > According to John Graham-Cumming, Wikipedia is a better resource for > researchers than Britannica. > > http://newstilt.com/notthatkindofdoctor/news/wikipedia-trumps-britannia > > <snip> > Initially, I’d find myself double-checking facts on Wikipedia by looking in > Britannica. I’d read that > Boltzmann<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Boltzmann> died > on September 5, 1906 on Wikipedia and jump to Britannica to check the > date<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/72401/Ludwig-Eduard-Boltzmann/72401main/Article#toc=toc9080519> > . > > After weeks of doing this I realized that Britannica wasn’t helping. Any > errors I found on Wikipedia were because I was reading original source > material (see for example this > correction<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment&diff=248412125&oldid=248347239> > ). > > Yes, this is an interesting testimonial. For me the turning point was the realisation (this was in relation to history) that I was finding errors in academic writing, in compiling and using Wikipedia, about as often as finding errors in Wikipedia itself. Though that depends a bit where you look on the site.
Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l