Sad to say Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html?hhTest=1.
Of course the source is CNet so YMMV.
Doug Franklin wrote:
> AlunFoto wrote:
>
>> 2008/7/18 Doug Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>> AlunFoto wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Well just kidding, but there's a huge grayzone between generally
>>>> agreed-upon facts and opinion-based articles. Just think of the
>>>> ever-lasting re-interpretation of history...
>>>>
>>> Exactly. I'll use it to look up mathematical formulae and things like
>>> that, but history, sociology, etc., I'll use a different source.
>>>
>> hmmm...
>> What kind of source would you prefer for such topics?
>>
>
> Current and historical academic literature and other first sources by
> preference. If I'm in a hurry, a more traditional encyclopedia with a
> reputation for doing the background validation research on the articles
> before publishing them, peer-reviewed journals from the field,
> well-known and -established monographs, etc.
>
>
--
You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.
--Al Capone.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
