Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;brg5658, post: 1243257, member: 29751&quot;]An original study done back in 2005 found that Wikipedia was essentially the same quality of information as the Encyclopedia Britannica.&nbsp; Several subsequent studies have also found the same conclusions.&nbsp; <a href="http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html" rel="nofollow">http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html</a></p><p><br /></p><p>It&#039;s tangential to the point of this posting, but for all intents and purposes, Wikipedia is an accepted resource for reliable information.&nbsp; This is mostly because it has been highly adopted by academics and professionals, and the editing process is highly supervised by reviewers and peers.&nbsp; In fact, Wikipedia is sometimes the preferred source of <i>recent </i>scientific articles, as the update of information is more &quot;organic&quot; than the standard research process employed by such publications as Britannica.</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;d trust what I read on Wikipedia any day over the garbage and mis-reporting I see on television.[/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