Oh, hah, hah.
Dec. 5th, 2005 05:31 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tahnanThe New York Times, having found an actual and slanderous inaccuracy in a Wikipedia article (probably because someone at the NYT read the slanderee's USA Today editorial on the subject), says: "Still, the question of Wikipedia, as of so much of what you find online, is: Can you trust it?"
Who here doesn't ask the same question of so much of what you find in the New York Times?
(To the Times's credit, the answer in the rest of the article was "well, yeah, if you take it with a grain of salt and recognize that Wikipedia is a single, possibly flawed reference, just like everything else". Or at least, that's the answer they quote from librarians and other information specialists.)
Who here doesn't ask the same question of so much of what you find in the New York Times?
(To the Times's credit, the answer in the rest of the article was "well, yeah, if you take it with a grain of salt and recognize that Wikipedia is a single, possibly flawed reference, just like everything else". Or at least, that's the answer they quote from librarians and other information specialists.)