http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia -- if not ordained directly from the Almighty, then at least by his earth-bound agents! No, but seriously, I agree with Le Hacker Soleil, news of wikipedia's inaccuracies is greatly exaggerated. Martin jerzy.karczmarczuk@info.unicaen.fr wrote:
David Barton writes:
The trustworthy articles on Wikipedia have references that can be checked, and read. The ones without references are not to be trusted......
Let's apply (illegally) some recursive reasoning. Why should we trust Dave Barton? He didn't give any references either! Seriously. *PLEASE*, show me untrustworthy Wikipedia pages. But NOT stub pages, visibly waiting to be completed. I do not claim that there aren't any. Encyclopaedia Britannica is not checked by the Almighty either... But I dont like accusations without explicit proofs. There are constant revisions of W_P, and established protocols to solve disputes. And, remember that already the invitation to editing says plainly that articles without references are routinely removed. Jerzy Karczmarczuk
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe