Wikipedia & Britannica Are Neck & Neck

[zengrifter]

The Nature of Wikipedia and Britannica

Recent events may provide cause for setting the differences, or lack thereof, between Wikipedia and Brittanica as well as Wikipedia and Open Source. A peer review of 42 articles in Wikipedia and Brittannica shows equal serious errors and a minor difference in minor errors.

... continued here - http://ross.typepad.com/blog/2005/12...ture_of_w.html

[zengrifter]

So thats why I cautiously find Wiki to be acceptable. zg

[aslan]

Originally Posted by zengrifter

So thats why I cautiously find Wiki to be acceptable. zg

It's a legitimate source. Juxtaposing two or more sources is a logical way to go even with traditional sources such as Britannica.

[moo321]

Zengrifter, I'm disappointed in you. Of all the conspiracy theories, one of the few I support is that wikipedia is controlled by a cabal of supereditors, many representing governments and major corps.

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by moo321

Zengrifter, I'm disappointed in you. Of all the conspiracy theories, one of the few I support is that wikipedia is controlled by a cabal of supereditors, many representing governments and major corps.

I said "cautiously acceptable" zg

[aslan]

Originally Posted by moo321

Zengrifter, I'm disappointed in you. Of all the conspiracy theories, one of the few I support is that wikipedia is controlled by a cabal of supereditors, many representing governments and major corps.

This may be true of mainstream sources as well. I think several sources is better than one, but even that is not 100% reliable.

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by aslan

This may be true of mainstream sources as well.

Thats like saying the Titanic may be a big boat! zg

[aslan]

Originally Posted by zengrifter

Thats like saying the Titanic may be a big boat! zg

Be gentle, zg.

[moo321]

Originally Posted by aslan

This may be true of mainstream sources as well. I think several sources is better than one, but even that is not 100% reliable.

Wikipedia is controlled by a group of about 1000 editors, many of whom may be clones of other users. You can edit and do whatever you want on the fringes, but on any issue they've decided, you can't touch wikipedia. See global warming, intelligent design, or all of the smear-job biographies of people they don't like.

[Automatic Monkey]

Originally Posted by moo321

Wikipedia is controlled by a group of about 1000 editors, many of whom may be clones of other users. You can edit and do whatever you want on the fringes, but on any issue they've decided, you can't touch wikipedia. See global warming, intelligent design, or all of the smear-job biographies of people they don't like.

That's well known. Wikipedia is a left-wing gigglefit; "Heh heh heh look what we can do, ain't we clever, they'll never figure it out."

What's disturbing is how ubiquitous it is. And a few teachers and professors I know have classes full of students who believe Wikipedia is an acceptable source for footnotes.