OT-Wikipedia WOW

[Chickenboy]

Awww man...I missed this whole thing the first time around. Thank you all for providing me some group nostalgia. [:D]

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I know a lot of people on the forum tend to have a low opinion of Wikipedia.  I've found a few factual errors there, but for the most part it's pretty accurate. I read somewhere that somebody did a study comparing Wikipedia to traditional encyclopedias like Britannica and found that Wikipedia was on par and sometimes more accurate with the traditional encyclopedias.

Bill

Yes, I had read the same. Which means scientific articles are very good (usually). But once you leave this area er... welcome to the Twilight Zone. Politics: how will you stop nutters from editing some articles? You simply can't.

[ilovestrategy]

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

ORIGINAL: Reg

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Does anyone remember the Chinese Lancasters someone posted to win an argument??[:D]

I was going to bring that up but you beat me to it!! (Nothing gets forgotten around here..) [:D]


For the newcomers (names have been omitted to protect the ????):
A while back a newbie made a hasty statement on these forums that the Chinese operated Lancaster aircraft. After the inevitable and unfavourable peer review on this very knowledgeable forum , he refused to back down and went to Wikipedia, updated the entry to backup his story and then cited the reference as part of his argument. Unfortunately he forgot that Wikipedia has a change log function... oops!!!

Cant fix stupid. [:D]

This is why I am VERY careful about anything I say around you guys...[:-]

[zzodr]

One of the first things they teach Uni students these days is NEVER reference wikipedia in any references.

[ilovestrategy]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

Chinese Lancasters Remember it well... Whoops!

I just read that from beginning to end and all I can say is "OMG!". Even Japan or Marky would be hardpressed to beat that. [:D]