On 21 May 2006 12:03:23 -0700, Blair P. Houghton wrote:

> The "best" wikipedia articles are characterized by semi-professional
> layout, lugubrious citation, and no fewer errors than the unformatted,
> uncited articles that don't get featured.

Which is why I differentiated between "factual" and "emotional" topics. The
statement that the emotional topics are "a little less reliable" was
sarcastic. Unfortunately, you seem to have ignored that.

> Believing the wikipedia is a good source of information is a new form
> of the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam. Citing it as a source,
> doubly so

It's not new. It's the same fallacy that comes when one assumes that ANY
encyclopedia is 100% accurate.

--
Derek

"You can tell a lot about a fellow's character by his way of eating
jellybeans." -- Ronald Reagan (Quoted in "Observer", March 29 1981)