On 08/05/2014 17:58, geni wrote:
>>So while it is unlikely that a published journal article would be a
complete hoax
This is because they have a robust review process, which Wikipedia
doesn't. Enough said.
>> Please robustly define "glaring".
Glaring means obvious, in plain view, manifest etc. I gave some examples
here http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/02/23/islands-of-sanity/
One example:"It can be speculated that one of the first people in Europe
who consulted the map was William Vorilong, noted philosopher from
England, who was shown the map while travelling with japanese visitor
Yoshimitsu Kage." William was French, not English. And he never visited
Japan.
>>Please also understand if I don't accept you as an impartial source
on the matter rendering your subjective judgements of limited value.
They are not subjective judgments, see above. 'Glaring' /=
'subjective'. Why don't you accept me as an impartial source? Because I
have written articles critical of Wikipedia? Oh right.
Some of these problems can be fixed. But fixing problems means
recognising there is a problem, no?
Edward
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
