4 ms·

Metric won that war ;-) http://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megabyte http://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megabyte

by rangibaby 13y ago

Dylan16807 13y ago
Wikipedia is not a source~
- SatvikBeri 13y ago
  For proof that Wikipedia is more accurate than other encyclopedias, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia (Though seriously, Wikipedia is about as accurate as the Encyclopedia Brittanica, at least for science articles: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a...)
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    That applies well to en.wikipedia.org, not as much to simple.wikipedia.org. See my reply to andyhmltn about how the properly researched page disagrees with the grandparent's link. Don't trust a wikipedia page that has zero citations.
    - Helianthus 13y ago
      Flamewar: success! Pxtl wins!
      - Dylan16807 13y ago
        Even though it's an argument about wikipedia and nobody has discussed the actual measurement system?
        Helianthus 13y ago
        Eh, point. I count any thread with a buried comment (like yours) as a flamewar, is all ;)
    - SatvikBeri 13y ago
      These are good points and it would be quite helpful if you put them in the comment next time. "The simple english wikipedia page has these specific flaws" is substantially more accurate and informative than "Wikipedia is not a source."
      - Dylan16807 13y ago
        Well, if you want to know, my original objection was toward using Wikipedia as the arbiter of correct stance on a political issue. Wikipedia itself tries to keep politics out, and for good reason with the way online communities can groupthink. Clearly I should have expanded on that in the first comment. I was not aware at that time that Wikipedia actually contradicted itself, but that was a very easy way to demonstrate my point in a followup post. But the particular flaws in that article were never my main point.
- andyhmltn 13y ago
  I dislike when people say this. No Wikipedia in itself is not a source, but it's usually an aggregate of sources. If you scroll to the bottom of the article, if it's properly labelled up you can find the exact sources for everything said.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    I scrolled to the bottom. The page had no sources. Then I went to the main English wikipedia page to get some sources, but apparently it completely disagrees with the simple English page. The real megabyte page says that it has multiple meanings, and the mebibyte page says that "it was designed to replace the megabyte" and that "it is not commonly used". And I'll assume the sources listed are suitable for the moment.

Metric won that war ;-) http://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megabyte http://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megabyte

Dylan16807 13y ago

Wikipedia is not a source~

SatvikBeri 13y ago
For proof that Wikipedia is more accurate than other encyclopedias, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia (Though seriously, Wikipedia is about as accurate as the Encyclopedia Brittanica, at least for science articles: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a...)
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  That applies well to en.wikipedia.org, not as much to simple.wikipedia.org. See my reply to andyhmltn about how the properly researched page disagrees with the grandparent's link. Don't trust a wikipedia page that has zero citations.
  - Helianthus 13y ago
    Flamewar: success! Pxtl wins!
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      Even though it's an argument about wikipedia and nobody has discussed the actual measurement system?
      - Helianthus 13y ago
        Eh, point. I count any thread with a buried comment (like yours) as a flamewar, is all ;)
  - SatvikBeri 13y ago
    These are good points and it would be quite helpful if you put them in the comment next time. "The simple english wikipedia page has these specific flaws" is substantially more accurate and informative than "Wikipedia is not a source."
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      Well, if you want to know, my original objection was toward using Wikipedia as the arbiter of correct stance on a political issue. Wikipedia itself tries to keep politics out, and for good reason with the way online communities can groupthink. Clearly I should have expanded on that in the first comment. I was not aware at that time that Wikipedia actually contradicted itself, but that was a very easy way to demonstrate my point in a followup post. But the particular flaws in that article were never my main point.
andyhmltn 13y ago
I dislike when people say this. No Wikipedia in itself is not a source, but it's usually an aggregate of sources. If you scroll to the bottom of the article, if it's properly labelled up you can find the exact sources for everything said.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  I scrolled to the bottom. The page had no sources. Then I went to the main English wikipedia page to get some sources, but apparently it completely disagrees with the simple English page. The real megabyte page says that it has multiple meanings, and the mebibyte page says that "it was designed to replace the megabyte" and that "it is not commonly used". And I'll assume the sources listed are suitable for the moment.