How much the mid east loves us

[TomOfSweden]

I love wikipedia. Here's a breakdown of all schools of Islamic philosophy. You might learn a thing or two Master Stone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_philosophy

If I could I would do nothing but read wiki articles.

[mkemse]

I love wikipedia. Here's a breakdown of all schools of Islamic philosophy. You might learn a thing or two Master Stone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_philosophy

If I could I would do nothing but read wiki articles.

The only problem with Wwikipesia and even they admit it, do not sue it as a primary source as user can edit any info listed bythe, the have an edit button at thetop, so if you wantto change what they have on any entry you go to the top hit edit and you can delete or add any info you wanyed
would not trustthe except in siutationsdwere i knew the answer and wanted to verify it

[TomOfSweden]

The only problem with Wwikipesia and even they admit it, do not sue it as a primary source as user can edit any info listed bythe, the have an edit button at thetop, so if you wantto change what they have on any entry you go to the top hit edit and you can delete or add any info you wanyed
would not trustthe except in siutationsdwere i knew the answer and wanted to verify it

You must have missed this little nugget of information based on research released in december of 2005.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

Wikipedia has the same number of factual errors per article as Encyclopedia Brittanica, which until then was seen as the worlds most accurate encyclopedia. Wikipedia simply rocks.

Since then wikipedia has tightened up control and controversial articles can only be changed if your on the comitee, which as a rule are headed by real scientists, (at least I know Swedish wikipedia is, and there's no reason for me to believe it's handled differently in the English one). So now it's even more accurate.

I think chances are pretty good that wikipedia is the worlds most accurate encyclopedia, and research suports it. So there. There's been more research after this, (funded by Encyclopedia Britanica off-course) that failed to debunk it.

Wikipedia still can't be used for serious scientific research, for obvious reasons of traceability. But it would be foolish to discount it simply based on it being wikipedia.

I think it's secret is just the fact that anybody can edit it. No other encyclopedia has more proofreaders.

[mkemse]

You must have missed this little nugget of information based on research released in december of 2005.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

Wikipedia has the same number of factual errors per article as Encyclopedia Brittanica, which until then was seen as the worlds most accurate encyclopedia. Wikipedia simply rocks.

Since then wikipedia has tightened up control and controversial articles can only be changed if your on the comitee, which as a rule are headed by real scientists, (at least I know Swedish wikipedia is, and there's no reason for me to believe it's handled differently in the English one). So now it's even more accurate.

I think chances are pretty good that wikipedia is the worlds most accurate encyclopedia, and research suports it. So there. There's been more research after this, (funded by Encyclopedia Britanica off-course) that failed to debunk it.

Wikipedia still can't be used for serious scientific research, for obvious reasons of traceability. But it would be foolish to discount it simply based on it being wikipedia.

I think it's secret is just the fact that anybody can edit it. No other encyclopedia has more proofreaders.

I agree and disagree if i may, i realuize the have countells proffreaders, but that does still not insure the accuracy of information, as the proffreaders are only as accurate as the person is
If their securit has tightened up it has failed as i did a complet edit on a entrties 5 minutes ago
I do agree that i would not use the site for any serious research but it is still fun to use regardless

My information i posted is based on an TV interview here in the US 2 days ago but the owners ofthe site who told viewers do not use the site for any searious research, i have to assume that a interview 2 days ago with one ofthe founding owners would be more current and relivent then a posted dated back to 2005, but i truely apprciate your brinig what you did to my attention
To be honest if i was doing serious research i would go to my local library anyone i would not trust any internet site for accurate info
I lok up 2 medical terms the other day, got 2 different replies and my docotor told me do not use the net for reliable medical information, ask me or go t the library

Just a thought and opion

And congrats on your engamement, can't forget that, that is far more important