On Fri, 4 Jan 2013, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
I don't have time, nor the inclination to argue the truth of otherwise of the global warming / climate change myths. You can believe the myth, I will not, regardless of how many Wikipedia links you send or other links, which IN MY OPINION ... usually offer false analysis [other opinions] of the real facts.
By definition false articles only exist if facts exist. Andrew doesn't seem to believe in the existence of facts which makes it dishonest of him to claim that anything is counter factual. I think that the opinion of people who believe in the "Bicholim Conflict" should be given at least the same weight as Andrew's opinions about climate change (or any other conspiracy theory). On Fri, 4 Jan 2013, Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net> wrote:
I haven't found any significant errors in Wikipedia articles on subjects that I know relatively well, but on the other hand this is based on a very small sample. I would expect it to be less accurate on topics in which the facts are disputed, for example matters of social or political controversy - but then the question arises of how accuracy is to be judged in those circumstances and how "balanced" the discussion needs to be, especially if the majority of informed opinion is on one side of a dispute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptoid When there are real controversies Wikipedia handles them much better than any other source of information. Every time I've checked a well known Wikipedia page that is related to controversy (EG the above) it seems neutral, unbiased, and informative. Wikipedia continues to be the best encyclopedia available by the number of topics (in English at least), the neutrality, the depth of coverage, and the external references. Has there ever been another encyclopedia that included references for all it's facts? -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/