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!feeder.news-service.com!cyclone01.ams2.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!voer-me.highwinds-media.com!npeersf01.ams.highwinds-media.com!newsfe25.ams2.POSTED!00000000!not-for-mail Message-ID: From: Chris H Newsgroups: sci.math,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<$2MAhMzXEEo7fFY09jKAGQUkw2>) NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.176.226.26 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Trace: newsfe25.ams2 1309279036 80.176.226.26 (Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:37:16 UTC) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:37:16 UTC Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:36:57 +0100 Xref: g2news2.google.com sci.math:242213 comp.lang.c:130786 comp.lang.fortran:44917 comp.lang.pl1:2691 comp.lang.ada:21016 Date: 2011-06-28T17:36:57+01:00 List-Id: 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. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/