I was just looking through the Wikipedia article on tea and it says "Today,
tea is the second most consumed beverage in the world after coffee..."
er...I thought it was the second most consumed beverege after water? Anybody
have a good statistic (and source) I can use to send in to them? I've just
seen that stated at various tea stores online...

I really didn't think more people drank more coffee than tea, that doesn't
make much sense to me.

Melinda

Nevermind, I fixed it. Never done Wikipedia before...

--

Melinda


"I know. You know I know. I know you know I know. We know Henry knows,
and Henry knows we know it."
We're a knowledgeable family." ::smiles:: -Geoffrey, Lion in Winter


"Melinda" > wrote in message
...
>I was just looking through the Wikipedia article on tea and it says "Today,
>tea is the second most consumed beverage in the world after coffee..."
>er...I thought it was the second most consumed beverege after water?
>Anybody have a good statistic (and source) I can use to send in to them?
>I've just seen that stated at various tea stores online...
>
> I really didn't think more people drank more coffee than tea, that doesn't
> make much sense to me.
>
> Melinda
>
>
>

Melinda wrote:
> Nevermind, I fixed it. Never done Wikipedia before...

It's interesting how unusual it is to find a question mark after the
words "wikipedia error".

--Blair

wikipedia is a great tool for a casual overview of a topic or a place to
begin one's research, but beyond that it gets mighty sketchy.

On Sat, 20 May 2006 08:32:02 GMT, Barky Bark wrote:

> wikipedia is a great tool for a casual overview of a topic or a place to
> begin one's research, but beyond that it gets mighty sketchy.

Not necessarily (regarding "mighty sketchy"). A study by the journal
"Nature" found that, on average, Wikipedia was as reliable as the
Encyclopedia Britannica. Of course, Britannica disputes the findings.

However, my experience has been that on "factual" matters, Wikipedia is
pretty reliable. Items with more emotional investment, such as politics or
biography of controversial people, are a little less reliable, in my
opinion.

However, if my kid ever tried to use Wikipedia as a primary reference for a
school paper, we'd have to have words.

--
Derek

"Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make
mistakes." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Derek wrote:
> On Sat, 20 May 2006 08:32:02 GMT, Barky Bark wrote:
>
> > wikipedia is a great tool for a casual overview of a topic or a place to
> > begin one's research, but beyond that it gets mighty sketchy.
>
> Not necessarily (regarding "mighty sketchy"). A study by the journal
> "Nature" found that, on average, Wikipedia was as reliable as the
> Encyclopedia Britannica. Of course, Britannica disputes the findings.

No, at best, it found 4 wikipedia errors for every 3 brittanica errors.
And their protocol was whacked, targeting a section of the wikipedia
(science articles) that was likely to have more-adept people editing it
in the first place.

Wikipedia's structure and management style naturally create a system in
which errors will be created, and many will not be fixed for a very
long time. I.e., the signal-to-noise ratio does not approach infinity,
it approaches an asymptotic value in the short term.

I'm not sure what the long-term trend would be, because one of its
features is that it ****es people like me off so much that it's no
longer worth my time to (a) fight with the trolls, (b) fight with the
admins who think I'm a troll, or (c) fight with Jimbo Wales about how
his admin corps have gotten out of hand.

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.

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

--Blair

In article >, Derek > wrote:
>On Sat, 20 May 2006 08:32:02 GMT, Barky Bark wrote:
>> begin one's research, but beyond that it gets mighty sketchy.
>
>Not necessarily (regarding "mighty sketchy"). A study by the journal
>"Nature" found that, on average, Wikipedia was as reliable as the
>Encyclopedia Britannica. Of course, Britannica disputes the findings.

Sheesh. I know the Britannica isn't so hot, but it's not THAT bad.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Barky Bark wrote:
> wikipedia is a great tool for a casual overview of a topic or a place to
> begin one's research, but beyond that it gets mighty sketchy.

Actually, Google is better. You'll still get the Wikipedia hits, but
you'll likely see real information in the links around it.

If you know absolutely nothing about a topic, Wikipedia will "inform"
you, but you will accept its word credulously, and then be just as
misinformed as it is.

--Blair