Talk:Wikipedia and Britannica about as accurate in science entries, reports Nature

Active discussions

i don't understand what {{{1}}} means...

Actually, thats a quite an amuzing question. You could say that {{{1}}} means the article was the victim of a tag&dash, which should occasionally get the tagger banned for a day. :) Nyarlathotep 19:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way in case the origional poster is still wondering, {{{1}}} means that the person who tagged disn't fill out the reason. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 00:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Not newsEdit

Its clear that this webbased fourm (wikipedia) will never be as consise and factual as mainstream publications. Wikipedia has a basic flaw that makes submitted articles that rely on "other " published works ( often innacurate themselfs ) Until thats addressed wikipedia will allways be open to such remarks

- demarco

nah, you are wrong. ALL human knowledge is based on potentially flawed knowledge. As this shows even "mainstream publications" are frequently flawed. I knew this, just wish more people realised that errors in an encyclopedia are far more common than the think (and certainly are not never, like some believe!) 21:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Mathmo[1]

Not a studyEdit

Nature self-titled it an 'investigation,' because neither they, nor anyone else in the scientific community, consider it a scientific study. 06:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Return to "Wikipedia and Britannica about as accurate in science entries, reports Nature" page.