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!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!94.75.214.39.MISMATCH!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Gib Bogle <g.bogle@auckland.ac.nz>
Newsgroups: sci.math,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG.
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:11:36 +1200
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <iudg27$1ik$3@speranza.aioe.org>
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>
 <1bei2e54d4.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net>
 <lANXICIpMgCOFAmv@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: g2qx4yoS+W7m4fJcL5PhWA.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: g2news2.google.com sci.math:242227 comp.lang.fortran:44922
 comp.lang.ada:21021
Date: 2011-06-29T09:11:36+12:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 6/29/2011 4:36 AM, Chris H wrote:
> In message<1bei2e54d4.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net>, Joe Pfeiffer
> <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu>  writes
>> "robin"<robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au>  writes:
>>
>>> "Georg Bauhaus"<rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>  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.
...

The problem with Wikipedia is that it required a lot of discretion and 
discrimination on the part of the user.  It is very good in some areas, 
and very unreliable in others (just as some people are reliable sources 
of information, and others are not).  For example, anything about 
political disputes that are still active is subject to capture by 
interested parties.  More generally, anything controversial is at risk 
of being distorted.  On the other hand, the more scientific the issue 
is, the more reliable the information on Wikipedia.  There is still a 
considerable element of randomness though, because while some articles 
are written by real experts, others are from people without a deep 
understanding on the subject.