How to make something not a fact into a fact - Page 3

iicatsii · 05-10-2007, 10:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garp

Which is why numerous independant tests have proven Wikipedia to be more accurate than such luminaries as Encyclopedia Britannica and so on.

Links please, or it never happened.

Fayshun · 05-10-2007, 10:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by iicatsii

Links please, or it never happened.

http://www.news.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

iicatsii · 05-10-2007, 10:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fayshun

http://www.news.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

I've seen that link before, it comes from the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia itself (lol bias) and it's years old. Since then there's been the plagiarism scandal, Essjay scandal, Wikiscanner scandal.

On top of that other facts about wikipedia have been changed by Jimbo Wales himself, like for instance the money that was invested to start up Wikipedia didn't come from a pornography site, but a search engine that dealt with 'erotic imagery' and that Jimbo came up with Wikipedia all by himself, with no help from anyone?

Saying that, Wikipedia is going to change. They're testing out the closed editing platform over at the German version. If successful, then Wikipedia will become more like Citizendium.

Fayshun · 05-10-2007, 10:56

Wasn't the study done by Nature though?

iicatsii · 05-10-2007, 11:06

Yes. What I meant is that when it comes to criticism of Wikipedia, they only let mild criticism to be added to the article due to the fact that the study said that Wikipedia was marginally less accurate than Britannica (any thing more comes under the BADSITES policy.) Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Nature was biased.

The study is years out of date though, a lot has changed.

Will · 05-10-2007, 17:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garp

Which is why numerous independant tests have proven Wikipedia to be more accurate than such luminaries as Encyclopedia Britannica and so on.

LOL!

05-10-2007, 10:56	#24
Fayshun Rocket Fuel Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Adrift in the Orca Posts: 6,845	Wasn't the study done by Nature though? __________________ We must move forward not backward, upwards not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling...

05-10-2007, 11:06	#25
iicatsii Columbian Coffee Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 55	Yes. What I meant is that when it comes to criticism of Wikipedia, they only let mild criticism to be added to the article due to the fact that the study said that Wikipedia was marginally less accurate than Britannica (any thing more comes under the BADSITES policy.) Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Nature was biased. The study is years out of date though, a lot has changed. Last edited by iicatsii; 05-10-2007 at 11:09.