I'm shocked that finding "four major errors" (out of 50) [as stated in
> the original article] in both Wikipedia _AND_ in the Encyclopeadia
> Brittanica hasn't led to people ripping the latter to shreds.
Well, it's generally frowned upon to cite it (or similar works) in scholarly writing at anything but the most elementary level. The same kind of scorn should be applied to writers who cite Wikipedia; unfortunately, sometimes it is not.
Thor Lancelot Simon snipped-for-privacy@rek.tjls.com
"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky