>>HL: But this is true of anything you read.
Yes, I agree with that HL, but that is exactly why you have to have confidence that the source of your information is accurate, well informed and secure. If you keep finding errors in a reference book, then there is no point in keeping this book as a reference since, when you really don’t know something, and you look it up, there is a good chance you might be misinformed and you won’t know. You’ll believe an untruth.
Wikipedia has too many errors in it for my comfort. It’s has to much hearsay. As I mentioned, I’m uncomfortable with the one invented word in the dictionaries, so a reference site with many errors is something I’ll never use.
>>wsieber: And if to know what is true, it were sufficient to consult an encyclopedia, scores of philosophers would be out of work.
Aye, life is an ongoing process of learning. You just have to look at the National Geographics of 20 years ago, and their information can vary greatly from their current information. The evolution of man articles are eye-openers as to how much we've learned in such a short period of time.
The thing is though, I’m not talking about the meaning of life, what’s our purpose, where to we go when we die, or those topics that philosophers have been arguing over since man learned to discuss, I’m talking about having confidence that the source of information I use is accurate.
I do realize that humans are the creators of these sources, and that errors can slip through because humans aren’t perfect, but, I also realize that there are certain organizations that are set up in a way to ensure accuracy, and others aren’t. Wikipedia isn’t.
