03-18-2006, 12:00 PM
A recent thread criticised a Wikipedia entry on the grounds of inaccuracy.
Accuracy (or otherwise) has been a common theme recently (e.g. this blog), following the expose, in Nature magazine, that Wikipedia was just as error-prone as Encyclopedia Britannica. In fact, it performed pretty well against the more "authoritative" source.
But the great thing is that, unlike the Britannica, users of Wikipedia can edit the content -- as readers of the lorica segmentata entry have found.
The moral of the story is to check out the "discussion" tab on any Wikipedia entry -- a bit like checking sources when reading traditional print material.
I look forward to seeing a revised lorica segmentata article.
Accuracy (or otherwise) has been a common theme recently (e.g. this blog), following the expose, in Nature magazine, that Wikipedia was just as error-prone as Encyclopedia Britannica. In fact, it performed pretty well against the more "authoritative" source.
But the great thing is that, unlike the Britannica, users of Wikipedia can edit the content -- as readers of the lorica segmentata entry have found.
The moral of the story is to check out the "discussion" tab on any Wikipedia entry -- a bit like checking sources when reading traditional print material.
I look forward to seeing a revised lorica segmentata article.
![[Image: 120px-Septimani_seniores_shield_pattern.svg.png]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Septimani_seniores_shield_pattern.svg/120px-Septimani_seniores_shield_pattern.svg.png)
![[Image: Estalada.gif]](http://webs.racocatala.cat/esteladaanimada/Estalada.gif)
