|
no personal attack...just pointing out some irony. You post something without attribution that takes the youngsters at wikipedia to task for lack of rigor and scholarship. You cut and paste without citing the original author violating one of the prime directives of scholarly publication. Then you confuse infer and imply.
Wikipedia is far from perfect. I believe I've posted that on a number of occasions. It has strengths and weaknesses. I will offer that having millions of eyes is often better for catching false information and balancing bias than single editors. Everything has bias and revisionist history. If you think Encylopedia Brittanica was "true" then I would suggest that you either don't think critically or don't really understand scholarship and the editorial process.
|