On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 01:44:59 +0200, Victor Sack wrote:

> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> i responded to your posts because i've seen so many people categorically
>> reject wiki as a source for *anything*, which i just think is foolish.
>
> I am not among those people and I believe I have cited at least one
> Wikipedia article in a post myself. Science articles tend to be good;
> articles referring to food range from good to completely useless.
> Wikipedia is not some kind of monolyth - basically anyone can post
> anything. If the subject in question is "foreign", it is instructive to
> compare the English-language Wikipedia article with the corresponding
> one in the native language, written by a native. Sometimes it will say
> something completely different. So, unless one already knows the
> subject well, it is virtually impossible to rate any given article. The
> same is even more true of _The Food Lover's Dictionary_ (Epicurious), as
> it is even less reliable than Wikipedia. Even such sources as Larousse
> Gastronomique can contain howlers, especially if "foreign" food is
> involved (and I believe I have pointed out a couple of such howlers).
>

you are right in that the food stuff is often unsourced. might be fun to
write an entry with footnotes leading to 'my granny, in a 1972 interview.'

>> so, my apologies.
>
> That's not the Usenet way!
>

i'm getting soft.

your pal,
blake