01-11-2007, 04:28 PM
morgorath Wrote:In college the professers ask us not to use wikipedia as a source. Thier reason is simple because thier facts are not checked and it is not edited. A good example here from wikipedia is on Eric Bischoff on 10-23-2006 he stated on WWE Monday Night Raw that thier were many falsehoods and misquotes about him. JBL asked him like what and he replied "Like wikipedia, they have my birthdate wrong I wan't born in October 1955. I was born on May 27th 1955." I posted this statment shortly after he said that on wikipedia. It has since been removed and Eric b-day was updated.
Hate to slam you when you just have gotten back to the boards. But you have just shown 1 article which in the total amount of things mean nothing. Maybe you should read and have your professor read this.
http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/1...=95&tid=14
or i will just quote it here.
Quote:"Nature magazine recently conducted a head-to-head competition between Wikipedia and Britannica, having experts compare 42 science-related articles. The result was that Wikipedia had about 4 errors per article, while Britannica had about 3. However, a pair of endevouring Wikipedians dug a little deeper and discovered that the Wikipedia articles in the sample were, on average, 2.6 times longer than Britannica's - meaning Wikipedia has an error rate far less than Britannica's."
So at least with science information its only slightly worse then Britannica so you saying you can't rely on Britannica either?