View Single Post
Old 12-10-2014, 05:11 AM   #6
Shades
Zealot
Shades ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shades ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shades ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shades ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shades ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shades ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shades ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shades ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shades ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shades ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shades ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Shades's Avatar
 
Posts: 119
Karma: 1246392
Join Date: Nov 2010
Device: Nothing Phone (2a) + @Voice, Kobo Libra H2O
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post
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.
Wikipedia can be wrong sometimes, but moderators are usually quick to correct errors. Wikipedia gets a lot of flak for being inaccurate when in reality that's just false. Articles are looked after very fastidiously. This is why the above link says Wiki and Britannica have similar figures when it comes to inaccuracy.

Also, Wikipedia is updated constantly and will usually contain the latest information on a subject.
Shades is offline   Reply With Quote