Hoi,
Research is not what we compete with. Research is not encyclopaedic either.
The research I refer to compared a set of subjects and compared those in
several sources... Then again why bore you with information you already
could know..

Cherry picking an article from Brittanica is wonderful, it "proves" your
point, it however fails to convince.

Your God or mine, the fact is that Wikipedia is a most relevant source.
Given your complaint about the John Dee article, there is an opportunity
for you. You claim to know the subject matter.
Thanks,
       GerardM

On 5 April 2015 at 12:06, Lilburne <lilbu...@tygers-of-wrath.net> wrote:

> On 05/04/2015 06:36, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> 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
> established scientific
> knowledge (where it was found to have 30% more errors), and highly
> disputed content.
> 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 is
> thwarted
> at every turn by those that want John Dee to be foremost the magician and
> conjuror.
>
> Perhaps in the end Dee the mathematician wins out, but it is a close run
> thing, and
> one has to pour over the stilted language and mish mash of thought
> processes to
> get there.
>
> Ironically enough many of the sources used to promote Dee the magician are
> instead
> 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: 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>
>
_______________________________________________
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>

Reply via email to