Wikipedia M3 entry

M

mfunnell

Shaken, so blurred
Local time
12:09 AM
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
2,595
I went to reference the Wikipedia article on the M3. Here's what the lead photo showed:



I replaced it with something a little more, um, accurate.

I haven't looked further to see what else may be out there :eek:

Makes you wonder what important things might be relied on because of similar accuracy...

...Mike
 
hehe the rare m3-2 or is that the even rarer m2-3?; well i think a lot of wikipedia info has to be cross-referenced; i have found numerous errors in various articles over the last few years. great concept and site, but i take it with a grain of salt.
 
I think Wikipedia is absolutely wonderful. One of the greatest achievements of the web.

There's errors everywhere - both in Wikipedia, and outside Wikipedia. But the good thing is that you amended it.
 
beethamd said:
But the good thing is that you amended it.
Click to expand...
Well, it seems churlish to complain but not do your bit to fix. Within reasonable time constraints, and all. I use it, but haven't thought enough about it to figure out if their model is "broken" or not. Wikipedia certainly provides things I haven't seen done any other way. But, as others have said above, it needs cautious treatment and cross-verification from other sources.

...Mike
 
I would simply say that Wikipedia is hardly alone in terms of factual errors, but is certainly the brightest star in the Constellation of Errors.

Much as I like, Wikipedia, "trust, but verify" is the order of the day.


- Barrett
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom