News1 min ago
The windchill factor
How does that work then?
Answers
1 to 3 of 3
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rjkh. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Click here for an answer.
Wikipedia is a good source for a quick informal fact-check. However, one should - as you say, Rjkh - be careful about placing too much credence on information provided by it. As its founder, Jimmy Wales, himself says:
"If what you are after is �Who won the World Cup in 1986?', it's going to be fine. If you want to know something more esoteric, or something controversial, you should probably use a second reference - at least."
Unlike, say, the Encyclop�dia Britannica, it lacks real authority or any scholarly credentials. However, the scientific journal �Nature' recently claimed that Wikipedia is as reliable as the Britannica.
The site itself states: "All information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatever."
If you consider that anyone - literally, anyone - can create an entry and anyone else - literally, anyone else - can edit it, you will realise how insubstantial its information might conceivably be. If the material you are researching is truly vital, you would be well advised to cross-check it elsewhere.
Cheers
1 to 3 of 3
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.