How is wikipedia a bad idea? Only because it has mistakes? Sure, but it's
still a lot more reliable than any other source on the net. All
encyclopedias can have mistake any information has to be verified anyway.
What else would replace it? Certainly not random discussions in random
On 1/11/12 9:39 , Didier Dambrin wrote:
How is wikipedia a bad idea? Only because it has mistakes? Sure, but
it's still a lot more reliable than any other source on the net. All
encyclopedias can have mistake any information has to be verified anyway.
What else would replace it? Certainly
You don't have to convince me, because I have a funny story about a (small)
mistake about the history of the company here, in a wikipedia article. One
day I see that same mistake on our own website, and ask the one who setup
the page where he got that information.. wikipedia of course. So a
On 11/01/12 06:45, Nigel Redmon wrote:
Just to get my fingertips wet again, I fixed something trivial that I had commented on
over two years ago: One of the simplest things you could imagine, an article on the while
loop construct in programming. There were examples in many computer languages,
Without looking at the page (I might do that later), I remember from
doing a few good edits which sometimes were deliberately changed that of
course the process of the wiki use has turned from good quick facts
(wikiwiki appears to mean quickly) to a battle with spammers and
strangely inspired
On Wednesday, January 11, 2012 6:41:08 AM Didier Dambrin di...@skynet.be wrote:
But it's still the place I'd trust the most.
It would seem likely then that you believe the results of the informal study
(not peer reviewed) by Nature back in 2005 that found Wikipedia had only
32% more errors
On 11/01/2012 14:39, Alen Koebel wrote:
Also, things that are considered correct don't necessarily stay correct.
That also works in reverse. Things that were correct on Wikipedia can be become incorrect in the blink of an eye. For every contributor that actually knows something about a
Hi Tom,
The wikipedia entry was:
Very similar to C and C++, but the ''while loop'' could also have been written
on one line:
As I said, this implies that that it couldn't be done in one line in C/C++, and
it can. So, I'd say that the original writer was incorrect.
And again, so you think
On 12/01/2012 4:01 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
well, i cannot tell that the WP admins are going to do anything about
this other than wait for the page protection to expire (about 26 hours)
and then see what happens. if enough of us converge upon the article,
then the tendentious editor
