There is also the article I wrote for the 'Other Place' here
http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/05/04/the-sum-of-the-parts , also on the
subject of indiscriminate copying and pasting from older reference sources.
The point is that any study of Wikipedia article 'reliability' should be
careful about the provenance of the article. The Wycliffe is barely more
than a copy and paste of an old (and somewhat outdated) source.
On 08/05/2014 09:24, edward wrote:
The study that Erik refers to here
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-May/071565.html
was seriously flawed.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/language-blog/bal-dont-trust-wikipedia-on-anselm-20120924,0,2521380.story#ixzz316sal7L4
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
