3 ms·
No, but information on Wikipedia tends to be accurate and based on reliable sources -- when a person contradicts Wikipedia and fails to provide any sources of t
by sltkr 13y ago
No, but information on Wikipedia tends to be accurate and based on reliable sources -- when a person contradicts Wikipedia and fails to provide any sources of their own, they are usually wrong. Not necessarily, of course, but often enough to say the burden of proof lies with the person making the unsubstantiated claim.
- saraid216 13y agoUh. There was a source provided: 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. I wouldn't call that more reliable, but it's still as valid a source as Wikipedia.
- mgraczyk 13y agoThe 1911 Britannica is not the source provided. The source is a hypothetical entry in an encyclopedia that most people don't have. That is not as valuable a source as Wikipedia because I cannot easily verify that the 1911 Britannica corroborates the facts in this email.
- maxerickson 13y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_a_citation_from_the_1911_Encyclopaedia_Britannica_with_Wikisource_reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_inc...
- saraid216 13y agoJust because you are lazy and unwilling to verify the source doesn't mean it's not a source.
- acqq 13y agoThe text of the whole 1911 Britannica is just one Google away: https://archive.org/details/EncyclopaediaBritannica1911HQDJVU https://archive.org/details/EncyclopaediaBritannica1911HQDJV... http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica
- sltkr 13y agoYou're right -- my mistake. I missed that somehow.