There was a study done (to lazy to search for it) that found that because of the amount of peer review wiki was more reliable than even scientific journals. Of course that doesn't mean every article is 100% accurate.

just sayin

 

+1

when i was in school i heard that there are so many people checking wikipedia all the time and fixing errors that it is extremely accurate.

 

:loco:

 

No, I'm questioning the Times article because the wiki lists two references that suggest otherwise. I went from Times article to wiki because the number seemed too large to believe. It just happens that someone already updated the wiki with the Times estimate, but there's no indication from NYT where that ridiculous number came from.

 

Well then you go ahead and quote the Wiki in your next paper and see how far it gets ya

Not really arguing the point but it is too open to fallacies for the same reasons you state for it's accuracies.

Most of academia still will reject any argument based on it's postings on principal alone.

 

Here is a firsthand accounting of the events as seen from a fisherman who was there and includes some short vids and photos

http://www.mudinmyblood.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6104

 

that is insane

 

 

poor sea creatures. they're killing our oceans /crazyblond

 

Obama sends in the A-Team:

http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/20...=huffbloomberg

hope they can find a solution quick, I'm liking the fact that they have a hydrogen bomb expert on board.