On 14/01/2012 05:09 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 1/12/2012 5:52, Invisible wrote:
>> Of course, if instead of inserting something obviously bogus, the
>> person had
>> made several small factual edits which look superficially plausible, you
>
> It would take about an hour. You don't think academics do experiments
> like this and publish their results.

Er, why would academics waste time on something as pointless as Wikipedia?



...oh, wait. I just remembered the experimental study to determine 
whether or not a duck's quack echoes. Damn.

>> This is why Wikipedia will /never/ be inerrant. ;-)
>
> Of course not. But it appears to have errors at about the same rate as
> normal published paper encyclopedia.

Really? So paper encyclopedias are written by people with no domain 
knowledge simply plucking facts out of thin air too?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message