--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
>
> I find Wikipedia a valuable source of information on a wide
> variety of subjects; I would be willing to bet that many
> list-members do, also.
Oh I'm sure. Maybe you should all get together and have
t-shirts made.
> If it is a "sociological experiment", then it certainly is a
> successful one.
Am I to understand that you believe you've read a large
enough sample of their articles, and moreover have the
expertise in the numerous fields required as well, to
properly judge the "success" of Wikipedia? The best that
I can say about those articles I've personally seen and
covering topics that I know something about, is that they
aren't always hair-raisingly bad. However they're seldom
what I would call good either.
I'm really surprised, considering your apparent distaste
for the plebian, that you're not put off by the horrible
grammar and writing skills alone of so many of the its
contributers, but perhaps you just haven't happened onto
any of the really bad stuff yet.
> I actually had no idea what Wikipedia would have to say about
> Nostratic, I just went there to see, and voilá! An unbiased
> article that reflects modern thinking on the subject.
You recognize unbiased when you see it, do you? :^)
David