In article ,
Methuselah Jones   wrote:
>Carved in mystic runes upon the very living rock, the last words of Amy
>Guskin of rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated make plain: 
>
>> I daresay that there are some subjects for which it is _very_ useful,
>> but if a topic is even the slightest bit controversial, there's
>> nothing to stop it from being edited, and edited, and edited, with any
>> old information that someone wants to post. 
>
>So, bear that in mind when reading about controversial topics. 

And in fact, Wikipedia has controls in place to throttle or even
temporarily stop updates to certain topics as needed, for however
long needed.

> So long as you're aware of and thinking about the 
>information you're taking in, I don't think Wikipedia is substantially less 
>reliable than any other source, and is quite a handy reference.

It sure is. I use it a lot to find information that would otherwise
be scattered across dozens of corporate press releases, for instance.


Patty
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32