On 24 October 2010 20:58, ???? <[email protected]> wrote: > Its not a question of lower levels of reliability it is a question of > the absence of reliability, the fact that one can never be sure that > what one is reading is correct, an honest mistake, or something inserted > to push some agenda.
And how does that differ from every other document written by human beings ever? > Next to the EB we have a French encyclopaedia. It is much less in depth > but it is still accurate in what it has to say on the subjects it > covers, and again I don't have to worry about whether some one just > added nonsense to the article on Maurice Jarre. You've just defined the New Columbia Encyclopedia as not an encyclopedia (see http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/08/29/050829ta_talk_alford ). And then well consider this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhine#Length -- geni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
