On 05/04/2015 06:36, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Reliable is not an absolute. Wikipedia is in the final analysis an
encyclopaedia. It is not original research.
One can indeed engage in original research by cherry picking the sources.
Studies have indicated that
Wikipedia is as reliable as its competitors.
Nonsense. Reliability has only ever been checked in the case of well
knowledge (where it was found to have 30% more errors), and highly
It has not been checked over the millions of articles that are neither
of the above.
Take the WP article on John Dee and compare it to the Britannica
article. The Britannica
article is both readable and well rounded. The WP article is a rambling
mess that tries
to present Dee the Mathematician, Scientist and natural philospher, but
at every turn by those that want John Dee to be foremost the magician
Perhaps in the end Dee the mathematician wins out, but it is a close run
one has to pour over the stilted language and mish mash of thought
Ironically enough many of the sources used to promote Dee the magician
promoting Dee the mathematician.
I think you have it backward. Given that Wikipedia is best of breed, people
do care about Wikipedia Zero.
God help us if that is the case. Fortunately there are far more
informative and reliable
sites about then wikipedia. Unfortunately they tend not to be on the
first page of a
search engine's results.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: