• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Wikipedia got Veterans day wrong ...

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
I'm not sure wikipedia is widely recognized for it's reliablity as an accurate source....

Regardless, it is routinely found to be at least as accurate as the best encyclopedias. I really don't understand the popularity of bashing Wikipedia. It's a magnificent resource for quickly and easily finding information on nearly any topic. Of course any information found in it should be considered potentially inaccurate, just as with information in an encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean it isn't an incredibly valuable site. If the people who so love to try to find errors in it corrected those errors, instead of engaging in absurd Ludditism, it would be even more valuable.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I don't recommend using Wikipedia as a scholarly source. However, it is a great starting point and has useful links to those scholarly sources and to primary sources.

Still, I wonder how the article is in error. The information seemed to be correct to me.
 

thebigsd

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3,535
Location
Quarryville, PA
Regardless, it is routinely found to be at least as accurate as the best encyclopedias. I really don't understand the popularity of bashing Wikipedia. It's a magnificent resource for quickly and easily finding information on nearly any topic. Of course any information found in it should be considered potentially inaccurate, just as with information in an encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean it isn't an incredibly valuable site. If the people who so love to try to find errors in it corrected those errors, instead of engaging in absurd Ludditism, it would be even more valuable.

That wasn't a bash. It was simply a statement of fact. I have used wikipedia many times as a starting point for information and it is typically reliable. I do recall not being allowed to use wikipedia as a source while pursuing my college degree. I was just trying to say that the OP shouldn't be surprised. This is all I was trying to convey. Relax :D
 

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
That wasn't a bash. It was simply a statement of fact. I have used wikipedia many times as a starting point for information and it is typically reliable. I do recall not being allowed to use wikipedia as a source while pursuing my college degree. I was just trying to say that the OP shouldn't be surprised. This is all I was trying to convey. Relax :D

Fair enough.
 
Top