Quote:
> the recording and definition of "errors"
Well, I can imagine. Many of the 'errors' in Britannica are those related to the fact that it is not up to date I suppose. For Britannica these are, of course, not errors - the entries are just dated. They are only wrong (and thus 'errors') to anyone who wants to use the thing as a reference that is abreast of developments. This is where wiki is 'more right';-)
Now you're being VERY disingenuous. It was the article's writers who decided what they would class as errors, in order to make the outcome as favourable as possible to Wikipedia. While there is no better resource for details on the Klingon agricultural calendar or the history of the Xemacs/Emacs war, it's still a dodgy reference source, poorly written, poorly researched, and as your (almost pavlovian) reaction shows, manically sensitive to any criticism. And I say this as someone who uses it every day.
Last edited by sjmaxq; 08/10/2006 9:46 AM.
