Yes, but does one need a reference, like for the delta wing article, when the statement is factual? With an encyclopedia they do not include references, either, but we could use the Encycl.
Wikipedia gets a raw deal sometimes. Sure, any moron can post or edit an article but more knowledgeable writers (and more morons) can and do go in and correct it. It’s rather like a live peer-reviewed journal and, with a little introspection, you can usually bank on what it says, at least with non-controversial topics.
…but we could use the Encyclopedia Britanica and nobody would call us on it.
[/QUOTE]
Of course, the biggest advantages of Wikipedia are that it’s there when we’re online and the quote is just a cut and a paste away. The importance of saving typing time cannot be underestimated.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Okay, let me get this straight. When you complain about how other people post, it’s light hearted, ironic fun that’s not meant seriously. When someone complains about how you post, they’re humorless, uptight, and overwrought.
