[extropy-chat] Wikipedia Faces Growing Pains

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:
>
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66210,00.html

I particularly note that they claim Wikipedia lacks
the standards necessary to be a sole source reference,
unlike for example the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

These days, I don't think there is such a thing as a
viable sole source reference in many cases.  Even
sources that used to be treated as viable.

Between new/emerging technologies, different spins on
historical events which should be documented beyond
ability to forge (like the Armenian Holocaust: were or
were not several million people deliberately
"cleansed" in a certain region of Eastern Europe
during WWI?), and the occasional typo even in the most
thoroughly edited documents, on any matter of major
importance I always try to get at least two credible
references (usually a minimum of one source that I
read for details, and another source that I skim for
confirmation).  Personally, I would give Wikipedia and
the E.B. equal credibility on most important matters
more than a few years old, and not expect the E.B. to
have much information on more recent events.