On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Austin Hair <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, <[email protected]> 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.
You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject contradicts. Austin _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
