Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 1916909, member: 19463&quot;]The whole point of Wikipedia is that when someone posts something wrong, someone else posts a correction to it.&nbsp; They occasionally have to mediate fights over conflicting facts but something like this should not stand.&nbsp; I could make the correction but I am not a Canadian specialist and do not understand where the author of this bit was coming from when he wrote such incorrect information.&nbsp; Rather than staeing that 1857 is the rare one, I could see it being quoted as the most common one because of the large number of remainders and the early dates mentioned as the rare ones.&nbsp; On the other hand, I see no reason that the line should not just be deleted.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Much of Wikipedia (spell it their way) is copied directly from sources the people who will not use it worship.&nbsp; The comment about pipe dreams and suppositions can equally well be applied to hardcopy published and peer reviewed textbooks if we look at the big picture.&nbsp; The benefit of the Internet as a whole is not that it contains no error but that there is a process by which error can be corrected while something stupid Einstein wrote on paper will live forever an be quoted by those who believe that anything read in a book must be true.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;ve never been perfectly clear on what a Blog was (other than one step down from Wikipedea) so I looked it up</p><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog</a></p><p>and was taken by how similar early forms were to what I was doing in 1997 but calling it my web pages.&nbsp; In the last couple decades we have seen significant format changes in the way information is distributed.&nbsp; This can be information on weighty subjects or fluff websites on ancient coins.&nbsp; Libraries have tossed out their card catalogs and many even ditched their Reference sections to make way for Internet connectivity.&nbsp; I remain curious on the format of the next step for information sharing.&nbsp; We now are obviously in a transitional period but I suspect that the future will never settle down out of what seems to be flux to those who believe in the good old systems of the past.&nbsp; Wikipedia will last until someone updates its process just like we now can edit its content.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in