-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
From: Jtkiefer
<jtkiefer(a)wordzen.net>
> The Guardian has a story entitled "Can
you trust Wikipedia?" in which
> various specialists rate Wikipedia articles in their field of
> knowledge:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1599116,00.html
As I also posted in another thread roughly on this topic, although we
should be concerned whether or not Wikipedia is trustworthy we shouldn't
get ourselves too concerned about the register's "articles" about
Wikipedia since every single article is clearly biased against wikipedia
beyond factuality so the register slamming us with criticism is just
business as usual.
No, but we _should_ be concerned about the _Guardian's_ articles about
Wikipedia.
Because the Register isn't trustworthy, but the Guardian is.
On a trustworthiness scale of 0 to 10, I'd pesonally score the Register
as 3, the Guardian as 9.5.
And Slashdot as 2, Drudge as 4, and Wikipedia as, um, about a 7?
I'd actually give Wikipedia an 8-8.5 on trustworthiness. Writing quality
is another thing entirely.
- --
Alphax | /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQEVAwUBQ2H8wLMAAH8MeUlWAQiKOQf/X6AiNZHkbY+5NRTDwPvApI1ep7R4WevS
RLJqP05fL68wyz7CInZCgd7r1oL6T0dN3yZSbmUVQ5bs335wR/KpU2mkYNj6Jpl0
Qp2ce62D3gR0rZSPJGR1/5+xxDdVOUbQjnSjaL/3wRpDzWNn+b24NxBpL7yoKlPi
1P47W2qBA1rUFL5Fr1Qp9Xors1T1b2MfaMkexzdnpzrdOMA/CBBRfnVGFs3zs6sI
v+Toa0Uko1LihTmk8eSNF+V3nCGdyU8u33I2RHL3ff4T7pGBoOX4+mFUrtF/7WXt
ipYW0UbUXpu0svn5vl8DRW6qeziWQQGaUlv3cFC2KFW45mbnEyY4TQ==
=tUxR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----