[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by deltop

In my experience it certainly is less reliable than other sources of information that are accepted in academic circles. Journals, text books and the like. Wikipedia needs to evolve more before it's accepted as a serious source of information. Information on wikipedia just isn't reviewed enough by people who are qualified to do so. Anyone can edit it regardless of whether they know what they are talking about. You can't say the same for academic journals which are peer reviewed or course text books.

You're making a judgement based upon an adherence to a particular procedure that you think will help achieve a certain level of reliability. This is a prior prejudice; anything that does not follow said procedure must be less reliable in your mind. But numerous studies have shown Wikipedia to be just as if not more reliable than those sources of information, despite following a different procedure to ensure that reliability.

Originally Posted by deltop

He didn't bring up Wikipedia, another poster did so he's hardly singling it out.

Now you're just playing word games. Who brought it up is irrelevant; he's singling it out from other encyclopedias, which one can infer are acceptable to him. If not, he's free to clarify, but pretending like this isn't a Wikipedia-centric issue is just muddying the waters.

Originally Posted by deltop

And yes encyclopedias and the like can be inaccurate too, but mostly due to out of date information. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. The amount of just plain wrong information on wiki far outstrips the amount of inaccurate information you will find in text books.

The total amount of information on Wikipedia may far outstrip the total amount of information you will find in text books, depending on how you define it. There's little evidence to support your claim that on a percentage basis Wikipedia is more innacurate.

Originally Posted by deltop

And by using words like "inferring" and "indicates" shows that you really have no idea what his thoughts are on printed media as reference sources. Your just guessing based on one widely held opinion he happens holds on wikipedia. Hardly a bases for saying he's bad at his job.

It's a perfectly acceptable basis, and we make such judgements every day of our lives. He's free to defend himself; beyond that this is not a court of law.

Originally Posted by deltop

Again you've no idea if he understands the problems of other cited sources, since he's yet to post an opinion of these. His opinion of Wikipedia was posted due to another poster bringing it up. I didn't see it as marginalizing Wikipedia at all. He's also a teacher at college level and has therefore probably had to deal with this very issue for a few years now, he's probably far more qualified to form an opinion on it than either of us.

I disagree; I have an idea based on what he's already said, the fact someone else brought it up doesn't change what he said, and the fact that you don't feel qualified to form an opinion is not my problem.

Originally Posted by deltop

I know that my father in law who teaches high school here in the uk is always complaining about the issue. His students are always trying to use wiki as a reference and therefore the number of inaccuracies that pop up in their essays and course work has increased dramatically.

Oh, well, anectdotal evidence from your father-in-law surely trumps any systematic study of the issue. In the future we'll consult your father-in-law for the answers to all important questions.

Originally Posted by deltop

I doubt very much that his opinion is poorly reasoned, although it could be, since he's yet to explain to us how he came to it. Although since he's a teacher I can guess that he's probably had quite abit of experience at dealing with inaccurate info on wiki. I certainly would be offended if someone took a three line post by me on a forum, inferred far too much from it and then proceeded not only to tell me that I was bad at my job but also proceeded to tell me how I should be doing my job.

Then you should be careful what three lines you post, lest you provide evidence to make you appear so.