4 ms·
>"Sounds like the same argument people made against Wikipedia, which I consider to be a very legitimate source of information on average." It can not be "legit
by quickben 10y ago
>"Sounds like the same argument people made against Wikipedia, which I consider to be a very legitimate source of information on average."
It can not be "legitimate" and "on average".
- lend000 10y ago> It can not be "legitimate" and "on average". I do believe you just made that up. Nothing is perfect, and yet there have been studies that show Wikipedia is more often factually correct than Encyclopedia Britannica, which was previously considered the gold standard. http://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/index.html http://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/index.html Is the New York Times legitimate on average? I would say so. Are there mistakes from time to time? Yes. They are typically corrected, as are Wikipedia's. I don't see the point in trying to find a petty side-argument when there is no argument to be had. If that's the best you could find though, I consider my above points to be well-vetted.
- quickben 10y agohttps://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/legitimate https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/legitimate https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legitimate https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legitimate I have nothing further to add to this thread.
- lend000 10y agoNo offense, but neither of your comments here contributed anything to the discussion, nor did they prove even the small, uninteresting point that you think they did.