http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia -- if not
ordained directly from the Almighty, then at least by his earth-bound
agents!
No, but seriously, I agree with Le Hacker Soleil, news of wikipedia's
inaccuracies is greatly exaggerated.
Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Barton writes:
The trustworthy articles on Wikipedia have references that can be
checked, and read. The ones without references are not to be
trusted......
Let's apply (illegally) some recursive reasoning.
Why should we trust Dave Barton? He didn't give any references either!
Seriously.
*PLEASE*, show me untrustworthy Wikipedia pages. But NOT stub pages,
visibly
waiting to be completed.
I do not claim that there aren't any. Encyclopaedia Britannica is not
checked by the Almighty either...
But I dont like accusations without explicit proofs. There are constant
revisions of W_P, and established protocols to solve disputes. And,
remember
that already the invitation to editing says plainly that articles without
references are routinely removed.
Jerzy Karczmarczuk
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
