Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to re: You should get your facts straight before you write such an emphatic comment

You need to learn about standards for research...
EnergyExpert — (archived)

Wikipedia is NOT a relibale source. Good summary of the reasons why....

http://www.answers.com/topic/criticism-of-wikipedia

"Wikipedia should not be used as a primary source for serious research, as discussed in Wikipedia itself.[1] The lack of authority, accountability, and peer review have all been sources of criticism. For example, librarian Philip Bradley acknowledged in an October 2004 interview with The Guardian that the concept behind the site was in theory a "lovely idea," but that he would not use it in practice, and that he is "not aware of a single librarian who would. The main problem is the lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data is reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, all that goes out the window."[2]"

and further down.

"Difficulty of fact-checking

Wikipedia contains no formal peer review process for fact-checking, and due to the lack of requiring qualifications to edit any article, the contributors themselves may not be well-versed in the topics they write about. As the cultural commenator Paul Vallely put in, writing in The Independent on the subject of Wikipedia: "Using it is like asking questions of a bloke you met in the pub. He might be a nuclear physicist. Or he might be a fruitcake."[13]"

The panel you mentioned is only a bunch of volunteers with unkonown qualifications in the subject area. That is why its not even accepted by middle school teachers as a reference source, let alone professionals.

In any case I posted a link to THE ARTICLE ITSELF, not a third hand discussion of it by a nameless individual of unknow qualifications....

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (132 posts)