>"reader's digest"
Yeah, I call BS.
Sure, there are shortcomings to Wikipedia. But it is unusual for me to read an article about a subject I feel knowledgeable about and catch them out in some unambiguous factual error or omission. It happens, but not that often. I am not sure Britannica would have done that much better in its heydey.
Not saying it is the best thing ever, not saying there aren't any problems. Ideological battlefield articles. People gaming/pranking it. An unfortunate tendency for some people who should be expert in a field to refer to Wikipedia as an authoritative source.
Certainly not unaware that the Reg has a history of getting snarky about them or Jimbo. And there is nothing wrong with knocking over some clay-hoofed sacred cows.
But straight out "Reader's Digest" in general? Methink you are jumping on bandwagon & puffing your own supposed wisdom up. But enlighten us by all means with some examples.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
