At 12:34:44 AM on Sunday, October 9, 2005,
david_russell_watson wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan"
> <proto-language@...> wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostratic_language
>> This article speaks for itself.
>> Nowhere did I use the phrase "accepted fact".
> Well I'm more or less through with this thread, but since
> you mention Wikipedia I can't help but make one more
> comment for the information of those who might not
> realize: Wikipedia is a sociological experiment, not a
> legitimate encyclopedia.
In fact it is both. In the areas in which I'm best
qualified to judge, the articles that I've read have been
okay to good. The mathematical articles are on the whole
rather better -- more informative and useful -- than I'd
expect to find in a general reference. Articles that I
suspect get heavy traffic are also generally good in my
experience. (I believe that there's even some research to
this effect.) The writing itself is of course very uneven,
and I have spotted the odd howler in an otherwise good
article, but on the other hand it tends to be less dated
than print references. I certainly don't take it as
authoritative, but then, I don't take *any* general
reference work as authoritative. It's useful for basic
factual data and for orientation; for instance, the article
that Patrick cited should give an unbiassed layman a pretty
accurate notion of the status of Nostratic hypotheses (and
definitely doesn't support his own enthusiastic position).
Brian