On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Austin Hair <adh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Anthony <wikim...@inbox.org> wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair <adh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony <wikim...@inbox.org> wrote: >>>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, <wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote: >>>>>> Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance? >>>>> >>>>> Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The >>>>> information contained on the page could well be nonsense". >>>> >>>> A better start would be to stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia. >>> >>> Who on earth thinks an encyclopedia is an authoritative source? >> >> How is that relevant? > > You seemed to be saying that by calling it an encyclopedia, > reliability is implied.
A higher degree of reliability is implied than is provided. I wouldn't go so far as to say that encyclopedias are generally authoritative, though. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
