Monday, September 25, 2017

Be wary about what you read on Wikipedia

They use (ahem) interesting sources.  Check out footnote number 1.

I mean, the source is pretty interesting and everything, but does this rise to the level of expert opinion?

5 comments:

MaddMedic said...

Shady......Just saying...

ASM826 said...

You just wanted someone to go back and read one of the better posts from your verbose period.

I would add to your theory the period between 1970 and 1990 in personal computing. Innovation in hardware and operating systems, followed by a Darwinian winnowing that has left us with 3 operating systems and 2 basic architectures.

http://www.oldcomputers.net/

Rick C said...

Go read the page on the Bolsheviks. It repeats the common lie about them, that their name described their position ("majority", which was a lie.) The discussion page points out it's wrong, but apparently someone make sure that any time anyone tries to fix the page, it gets reverted.

Brigid said...

Back in my pilot days we would rely on pilot reports to disprove a forecast so we could legally launch. I was doing airline service into one airport that was hours from anywhere by vehicle and often fogged in so people were just stuck at the cafe there overlooking the runway and waiting. The forecast still showed fog so we sat. Suddenly we got the prerequisite amount of "pilot reports" that the fog had cleared for the day. The dispatcher was just getting ready to launch us when he noticed under "aircraft type" was "guy in restaurant". Needless to say, we didn't take off.

libertyman said...

Looks legit to me.

I suppose they could have said "One smaht bahstad" .

They would be right.