View Single Post
Old 12-10-2014, 04:18 AM   #5
HarryT
eBook Enthusiast
HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
HarryT's Avatar
 
Posts: 85,557
Karma: 93980341
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by meeera View Post
Welllll..... not quite "certainly". The accuracy at Wikipedia is surprisingly good.

http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia...3-5997332.html
The main problem with Wikipedia as a research tool is the fact that it's not stable, and not attributable, so it's of limited value as a reference source. With Britannica you know who wrote it, and can quote it as a reference. You could look at Wikipedia one day, find some information, go back next week, and find that the same article says something completely different.

As a general source of information I agree, Wiki is great. I use it almost every day to look up one thing or another. But when I want to do academic research, I go to Britannica.
HarryT is offline   Reply With Quote