Re: [ARSCLIST] Whacky-Packia outed for what it is -- Amateur Hour in Siberia

["Steven C. Barr(x)" <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

see end...
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Lennick" <dlennick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Don Cox wrote:
> > On 21/03/07, David Lennick wrote:
> >
> >> Steven Levy is typical of today's idiotic journalism and the state of
> >> education in general. Bravo for Keen! And my opinions on Wackypackia
> >> are well known to this group and haven't changed (nor has
> >> Wickywackypedera).
> >>
> > No doubt Wikipedia contains plenty of errors, but is it any worse in
> > that respect that any current commercial encyclopedia?
> >
> > The days when Britannica was written by top experts are long gone.
> >
> > I have found Wikipedia useful for topics such as rock bands.
> >
> > Regards
> What is the point of calling on a resource where you have to second-guess the
> accuracy of the article in question? Until the day comes when Wikipedia cannot
> be amended by anyone for any reason, except with accepted credentials,
> Wikipedia is verboten in my house as it is in any reputable newsroom. If you
> want to scan it for laughs, go right ahead. I do not and will not rely on
> anything where Wikipedia is the prime source. As for other publications
> committing errors, yes they do..look at Consumer Reports which just had to
> retract an entire article on testing of car seats. Has Wikipedia ever
retracted
> anything?
>
> Sorry, there is nothing you can say that will convince me otherwise.
>
> And I offer an apology to Siberians, in case nobody else has.
>
Except...

There does NOT exist a single information source which is absolutely
100% accurate and reliable (with the exception of "holy scriptures"
such as the Holy Bible, the Quran, usw, ASSUMING one is a believer
in the applicable faith...!).

Once we remove the intentionally-inaccurate sources (Fox News as
well as much coverage of local items in local publications...)
and the unintentionally-inaccurate sources (too numerous to
mention...) you are left with, essentially, zero or less!

For example, we collectors of shellacoid objects tend to assume
that Sir Brian Rust provides infallible data in his plethora of
works...however, virtually every owner of one of his works has
made extensive hand-added corrections.

In fact, one can't even rely totally on what one sees (or, more
accurately, THINKS one sees...was one wearing the right eyeglasses?
Had one ingested hallucinogenic substances? Or...).

Steven C. Barr