On 24/10/2010 19:33, Austin Hair wrote: > 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.
He is probably thinking about this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/ Actually I dug out an old 1999 CD version of Britannica the other week. *whispers* I was amazed as to how refreshing the articles are. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
