From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,232e89dd4cc3c154
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net>
Newsgroups: sci.math,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG.
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:25:06 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <iuco82$u6s$1@dont-email.me>
References: <4dae2a4b$0$55577$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <4dbd6e9c$0$12957$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com>
 <925saiFj03U7@mid.individual.net>
 <4dbe2304$0$12961$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com>
 <iplmk8$2s6$1@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk>
 <4dda0486$0$67782$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <4e098093$0$79550$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <iuchk8$gha$1@dont-email.me> <9uBxDBFYEdCOFA37@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 14:25:07 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="z6x13JPcEt9SiQRsy+GiBQ";
	logging-data="30940"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19sme77QSMavRwHSDn8CcBX7MQv/Ga2/vQ="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Thunderbird/3.1.10
In-Reply-To: <9uBxDBFYEdCOFA37@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sAYoBgRZ7w668EaR/WDxmSmHIag=
Xref: g2news2.google.com sci.math:242206 comp.lang.c:130779
 comp.lang.fortran:44911 comp.lang.pl1:2687 comp.lang.ada:21012
Date: 2011-06-28T10:25:06-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 06/28/2011 09:03 AM, Chris H wrote:
> In message <iuchk8$gha$1@dont-email.me>, James Kuyper
> <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes
...
>> It's only worthwhile pointing out the unreliability of wikipedia if you
>> can identify a more reliable source.
> 
> That is not true.   Unreliable information should be removed if it is
> wrong.

If you are justified in your belief that something is wrong, you will
have an alternative source that you consider more reliable. If so, you
should cite it; without such a citation, other people cannot judge the
accuracy of your belief that it is, in fact, a more reliable source.
-- 
James Kuyper