4 ms·
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
by 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 agoThat 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 agoFlamewar: success! Pxtl wins!
- Dylan16807 13y agoEven though it's an argument about wikipedia and nobody has discussed the actual measurement system?
- Helianthus 13y agoEh, point. I count any thread with a buried comment (like yours) as a flamewar, is all ;)
- SatvikBeri 13y agoThese 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 agoWell, 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.