That other references are inaccurate is irrelevant, Rob. Even the article you referenced agrees that Wiki has had a fair share of false and misleading info published.
If we're talking about certain types of facts, Wiki may be as good as many other reference materials, but we're talking about the subjectively observed behavior of Tom Cruise. In no case would I trust any source to be accurate with situations of the sort we're discussing here, and, if the information were important to me, I'd check several sources, and maybe even go back to the original source, were that possible. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Rob Studdert > > No, I mean that "facts" often found in Wikipedia have been changed and > > altered by reader input, at least that's my understanding. IOW, it can't be > > trusted to be a neutral and honest reference. > > You really do have to research how Wiki works and also consider how any other > "classic" reference have been forged, I prefer the Wiki model, in the end it > will lead to a wider and more thorough reference.
