Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'didn't realise' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
didn't realise
Authored by: inemo on May 01, '06 11:48:30AM

I didn't even realise it was still installed in Tiger!

---
http://caius.name/

I'm just a mac baby :)



[ Reply to This | # ]
didn't realise
Authored by: solipsism on May 01, '06 12:54:38PM

According to Wikipedia, it will be removed from 10.5 Leopard.

I've always thought it was such a great idea but I have never used it. I'm sure I'm not alone here. The thing is, I don't why I never used it.



[ Reply to This | # ]
didn't realise
Authored by: Anonymous on May 01, '06 01:23:48PM

Since when is Wikipedia considered an "authoritative source" on anything? I don't doubt that Sherlock will be yanked out but quoting Wikipedia is like saying you heard it at the barber shop...just saying...



[ Reply to This | # ]
Wikipedia says ...
Authored by: sjk on May 01, '06 03:02:38PM

Yet another "Since when" criticism of a Wikipedia reference, sigh. Consider that solipsism only mentioned what (s)he discovered on Wikipedia about Sherlock, without any claim that it was authoritative information.

Seems friendlier to question someone's intention before making assumed implications about it.



[ Reply to This | # ]
didn't realise
Authored by: bradleyd1971 on May 01, '06 03:45:16PM
You should really do some research.... There was an article in the NY Times several months back that detailed the results of a study of wikipedia's accuracy.

The study found that in most cases it (wikipedia) was just as accurate, or even more accurate, than The Encyclopedia Brittanica. I beleiieve that it ended up that TEB had an error ratio of approximately 3 errors per 1000 facts, and wikipedia had approximately 4 errors per 1000 facts. The type of errors were different though. TEB's errors were mostly omissions (due to a longer publishing / editing cycle), while wikipedia's were typically opinions being listed as facts and defacements of paricularly contentious topics.

So yes, wikipedia can be an authoritative source, you just need to be careful when using it as a source for certain topics.

Here is a link to a slashdot post on the subject.

[ Reply to This | # ]
didn't realise
Authored by: frgough on May 02, '06 07:56:37AM

You should take your own advice. Britannica gave a very lengthy and in-depth response to the "study."

The conclusion: A bunch of agendized journalists did the study with biased reporting and slipshod research methods in a fairly clumsy attempt to pump up Wikipedia.

The sad thing is, a lie can generally be told in a sound bite while the truth takes a few paragraphs.



[ Reply to This | # ]