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!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news3 From: David Bernier 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 13:06:11 -0400 Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $19.95 Message-ID: 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> <4dda0486$0$67782$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> <4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> <4e098093$0$79550$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> <1bei2e54d4.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: pefc714fd0fb848004f5f1cd17d22552c17ad1ce772cf5678.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110429 Fedora/2.0.14-1.fc14 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 In-Reply-To: Xref: g2news2.google.com sci.math:242217 comp.lang.c:130790 comp.lang.fortran:44921 comp.lang.pl1:2694 comp.lang.ada:21019 Date: 2011-06-28T13:06:11-04:00 List-Id: Chris H wrote: > In message<1bei2e54d4.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net>, Joe Pfeiffer > writes >> "robin" writes: >> >>> "Georg Bauhaus" wrote in message >>> news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net... >>> | >>> | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share >>> | of 8bit 0>> | the numbers.) >>> >>> Wikipedia is not a reliable source. >> >> It's as reliable as any encyclopedia. > > That is the problem we face... stupidity like that. > > Wiki is very far from being as reliable as any other encyclopaedia. > > I know some one who has a written a page entry for the Encyclopaedia > Britanica. He is a world expert in the subject which is why he was > asked to do it. When he finished the item it was peer reviewed by other > world class experts. It is like that for al their entries. The same > with most other encyclopaedias. They take a lot of care. > > That sort of level of care does not go into wiki pages. Anyone can write > anything on any page. There was an experiment done 3-4 years ago to see > if was possible to get ridiculous changes past the page editors. IT was > so successful that after owning up some of the changes were not reversed > until the experimenters re-edited the pages themselves. > > SO apart from the usual mistakes, and the authors being anything but > experts, there are those with differing views counter editing and of > course malicious editing. You don't get these problems in other > encyclopaedias. > > In short due the openness of the wiki it is far less reliable than any > other encyclopaedia. Because no one is responsible in any meaningful way > for what is on wikipeadia. > > A few years back I had written that the Wikipedia page on Brownian motion was about as good as what I'd expect from Encyclopaedia Britannica. Unfortunately, I hadn't looked at what Encyclopaedia Britannica had on Brownian motion. That was at a time when Encyclopaedia Britannica was a more accurate reference than Wikipedia. It would be interesting to find those old web pages, if they still exist. David Bernier -- The MegaPenny Project | One Trillion Pennies: