Originally Posted By: quick_joey_small
By the way where does Wikipedia reputation for inaccuracy come from? I've never known it be wrong. But I only read the serious pages. No reason anyone would lie about a historical date say.
A lot of arguments would be solved if people checked it. Not to start a debate; but the so called climate change 'scientific' debate ended for me when I looked up the climate sceptics and almost none of them were climate scientists. It's not a debate between the scientists; it's a debate between the sceptics and the scientists.

Are the celebrity/sports etc pages deliberately filled with lies?



When it comes to controversial or limited public knowledge topics, the entries are worthless. There a very limited amount of fact being held together with the proverbial "chewing gum, duct tape, and baling wire". It's a lot like the talking heads after a disaster. The more mundane stuff (i.e. hard sciences, literature, etc.) are reliable.
_________________________
Hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane