Wikipedia

[Mike]

There is a new story circulating about the bogus professor on Wikipedia. i don't know why people would want to put themselves through the embarrassment of being found out!

[Andy]

hehehehe

I go on it every so often for information regarding random subjects. What gets me is why anyone could be bothered doing that.

[mr_e]

i don't know why people would want to put themselves through the embarrassment of being found out!

Dan, parchance?

I notice there's no mention that the guy in question actually got any information wrong. I'll still be using Wikipedia, put it that way.

[John Knight]

as a whole i think wikipeda seems to get most of its information correct. but sadly i don't know everything. I am woking on it though.

[Mike]

Wikipedia is at least as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannia which is impressive. It will not stop me using the resource (it is fantastic free program and database of knowledge). I think mr_e told me the story first so I will let him elaborate.

[mr_e]

Which story? Details are a bit hazy now, but they took a sample of articles, and they found the same number of major errors between the two competitors just mentioned. This being quite a major deal, as one of them you have to pay for. I think Britannia argued that there were more minor errors in Wikipedia, which was true according to the sample results. Still, if you were using it for important stuff, I'm sure you'd do some cross-checking.

[Mike]

This Website seems to be devoted to the study of Wikipedia articles. Weird.