A Linux magazine costs about £6 so for two quid it would be reasonable to expect software one-third as good ;-)
Owain
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
[OT] Is the Brittanica with today's Sunday Times the full thing?
Loading thread data ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
HLAH ha escrito:
thought everyone was by now aware of the dangers of the 'information' on wikipedia!
formatting link
as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge.
- Matthew White's WikiWatch
formatting link
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
page on the Enc. Brit..
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
In terms of quality of information, with Wikipedia you tend to get what you paid for.
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
The message from "b" contains these words:
articles, it's more about how people who don't like what's written about them have trouble changing it.
In general anyone who relies on one source of information is a fool and Wikipedia makes a good starting point for research on many subjects. And anyway, if you really have a problem with the accuracy of any particular bit, stop grumbling and change it.
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
I'm amused by the irony of someone who posts "ostentatiously anonymously" complaining about the accuracy of information on the internet ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
In message , at 14:55:16 on Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Guy King remarked:
There is a significant scalability problem here. It's like asking someone to clean all the graffiti off the UndergrounD if they don't like it.
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
Wikipedia is a fantastic source for quickly "scoping" out a topic and then using the references to fill out and qualify the information, hence why I said "Wikipedia and the Web"
If you were stupid enough to rely on just Wikipedia or Britannica as sole sources for serious reference then you are an idiot.
At least with Wikipedia, unlike Britannica, when you read something that you know is inaccurate you can quickly correct it for the benefit of all.
H- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
The message from Roland Perry contains these words:
I've done a bit of that!
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
And how are you supposed to change it? Surely the whole point of an encyclopaedia is to look up stuff you DON'T already know?
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
Well that's a big "whoosh" for you regarding the concept of Wiki then isn't it?
H- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
In message , at 16:36:17 on Tue, 21 Nov 2006, asdf remarked:
Not at all. It's entirely possible to look at an encyclopaedia and see things which are incorrect (or at the very least substantially incomplete) if it happens to be an area where one has personal experience.
The Wiki entry:
formatting link
which has railway connections (phew!) has been altered several times to get it closer to reality.
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
If you rearrange the previous paragraph to say:
In general anyone who relies on Wikipedia as a source of information is a fool.
You will be more correct.
Bill Dixon
>- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
There are some things we know that we know, and some things we know that we don't know...