[aldo_14]

Ah, but the same can be said of any encyclopedia too. They can be great starting points, but cannot be used on their own to make an argument. Wikipedia, like any paper set, will usually have enough information to disprove something that is blatently wrong, but not much else. And it offers you direction for further study, which is the real strength of any reference source.

But, encyclopedias have a responsibility (purely as an unreliable encyclopedia would go bust) for factual accuracy as well as editorial oversight.  I'm not claiming an encyclopedia is itself all you need to make an arguement; but it is inherently more reliable as the basis for one.  Again, this is not me saying wikipedia is necessarily bad, just that it isn't the dogs bollocks and has serious reliability issues if used on its own (i.e. without references).

[FireCrack]

I own Two full sets of encyclopedia britanica as well as a full set of funk and wagnell

[WMCoolmon]

When you're dealing with anything geeky Wikipedia is pretty accurate. There are enough contributors who know physics, chemistry or computing well enough to make sure there aren't many hideous errors. As the study shows they did about as well as Britannica in that respect. As soon as you leave science or science fiction the quality plummets though.

Women
Flirting
Babylon 5

[Kamikaze]

But, encyclopedias have a responsibility (purely as an unreliable encyclopedia would go bust) for factual accuracy as well as editorial oversight.  I'm not claiming an encyclopedia is itself all you need to make an arguement; but it is inherently more reliable as the basis for one.  Again, this is not me saying wikipedia is necessarily bad, just that it isn't the dogs bollocks and has serious reliability issues if used on its own (i.e. without references).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclopædia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia

At least you can correct Wikipedia when it's wrong.

[WMCoolmon]

Yeah, I don't watch Babylon 5, and I'm not exactly regarded as a master womanizer...

[aldo_14]

At least you can correct Wikipedia when it's wrong.

Another reason why it removes any authorial responsibility for correct information.  What possible use is a reference source when it's guarentee of accuracy relies upon you looking it up somewhere else, or already having that knowledge?  The 'you can fix it yourself' concept - excuse - is simply a way to avoid taking responsibility for errors.

That - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclopædia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia - is a perfect example of all that is wrong about wikipedia.  It's a simple propaganda piece; just see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia for the inherent bias drawn towards any criticism of wikipedia itself.

[CP5670]

That Britannica corrections page is indeed biased trash, but I haven't seen anything else nearly that bad on there. On the other hand, they list this:

[q]Big O

Big O notation, also called "Landau's symbol", is now common in mathematics and computer science. It compares the speed of growth of functions. It was first described in 1892 by the German number theorists Paul Bachmann and Edmund Landau; reference to it has not yet been found in EB.[/q]

That is a huge omission as far as I am concerned.

[Sandwich]

I will never trust any argument that uses Wikipedia as a major source. The arguer will have to come up with something rather more reliable.

One could say the same about the web. Outside of "official" websites from "official" organizations, one would be right.

[Mongoose]

That Britannica corrections page is indeed biased trash, but I haven't seen anything else nearly that bad on there. On the other hand, they list this:

[q]Big O

Big O notation, also called "Landau's symbol", is now common in mathematics and computer science. It compares the speed of growth of functions. It was first described in 1892 by the German number theorists Paul Bachmann and Edmund Landau; reference to it has not yet been found in EB.[/q]

That is a huge omission as far as I am concerned.

Now that's just a blatantly incorrect statement.  We all know that Big O is a particlularly powerful Megadeus piloted by a certain Mr. Smith.

[Carl]

Babylon 5

Another independently developed, freely available mod is The Babylon Project, a total conversion of the computer game Freespace 2. The mod features several campaigns set during the Earth-Minbari War and the Raider Wars. Additional campaigns, including the Earth Alliance Civil War, are planned. Active development continues on the project's forums at Hard Light Productions

^__^

[WMCoolmon]

I've found that there's a fair amount of detail on BDSM in the Wikipedia. Even a sort of mini-Getting Started/Howto guide.

[Kosh]

I've found that there's a fair amount of detail on BDSM in the Wikipedia. Even a sort of mini-Getting Started/Howto guide.

Why were you looking for something like that?

[Singh]

hmm.....this makes me wonder - why isn't HLP on Wikipedia at all? Spacebattles.com is on there and if they can have a page, why the hell cant we?

[vyper]

Spacebattles probably shouldn't.

[WMCoolmon]

I've found that there's a fair amount of detail on BDSM in the Wikipedia. Even a sort of mini-Getting Started/Howto guide.

Why were you looking for something like that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seduction_of_the_Innocent

Someone mentioned it in an online thread and I got curious. Note: (Wertham's claim that Wonder Woman had a bondage subtext was somewhat better documented, as her creator William Moulton Marston had admitted as much; however, Wertham also claimed Wonder Woman's strength and independence made her a lesbian.)

[Kamikaze]

hmm.....this makes me wonder - why isn't HLP on Wikipedia at all? Spacebattles.com is on there and if they can have a page, why the hell cant we?

I think that might fit under vanity or autobiography, both are discouraged.

[WMCoolmon]

Hmm...who knows of HLP, but isn't really a part of it.

* WMCoolmon thinks hard...an0n, Derek Smart, daveb...uhm...some squadwar guys...