Granity wrote in news:Granity.8c87416
@gardenbanter.co.uk:


Wiki is usually reliable on most scientific and mathematical topics and
you can always check the references from the bibliography.

But not, unfortunately, on global warming matters, as there was the case
where one of the AGW activists who was also a Wiki editor went through
and rewrote all the articles about the Medieval warm period and the mini
ice-age saying that scientists had now come to the conclusion that they
didn't exist, (not true) just to try and give credence to the now
defunct hockey-stick graph which had eliminated them to back up the
claim by M. Mann of unprecedented warming. He was exposed and banned
from wiki.





This is why it is dangerous. Can vulnerable or uneducated people see the
content which is true or false? How do they know what is true or false?

As has been said about how to revive or treat a person who has had a heart
attack, would you rely on wiki to advise you. No. You would not! Well if
you did it could turn out to be the wrong decision. Put someone at risk?

Scenario:

Caller: my parter is going to jump out of the 18th floor window

Emergency Services: has he googled wikki?

Caller: No, erm why?

Emergency Services: he could get a better answer on his way down with the
online wikki we provide, free of charge, but the answers are a bit iffy at
the moment.

Caller: Will we get some truth?

Emergency Services: No, but at least we have told no lies and can't now
'cos yer partner is splattered all over Marks and Sparks's car park.

Baz