According to an Associated Press article, the science journal Nature found that in a head-to-head comparison, the online encyclopedia Wikipedia was substantially as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Will Shetterly (shetterly) links to a report in The Christian Century: The University of Geneva’s Rodolphe Kasser will soon be publishing a translation of the long-lost Gospel According to Judas Iscariot. The gospel, first mentioned as early as 180AD by Irenaeus of Lyon, will be an English translation of a fourth century Coptic language text discovered a few decades ago at Muhazafat Al Minya in Middle Egypt. I’ve always been facinated by apocryphal texts like the Gnostic Gospels, so this should be quite a lot of fun to read. More information about the text can be found here.
Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett offer up New Years Resolutions for Ariziphale and Crowley, characters from their novel Good Omens, which HarperCollins is apparently issuing a new hardcover edition of in 2006.
thespian points to one of the more bizarre things I’ve ever seen printed, A Ziggy Stardust comic book.
Someone on rec.arts.comics.strips points to this lovely essay by Mark Evanier detailing a chance encounter with Mel Torme in Los Angeles one Christmastime. It’s a lovely story.
earthmystic ponders the formulation of an anatomy of Love. Lots of stuff here I agree with.
New Scientist Space has a facinating article on thirteen things that don’t make sense, including the placebo effect, dark matter, and cold fusion.
More specifically — and more interestingly — the Nature study found that Wikipedia had somewhat more errors per article, but fewer errors per word.
True, but the main point was that, at least in articles on Natural Science, there wasn’t a substantial difference in the quality of accuracy between the two.
This isn’t so much a championing of Wikipedia as a reminder that even the very best compendiums of knowledge are fallable, and that all information should be a) taken in context, and b) cross-checked with other sources.
Thanks for the link to
‘s post. That was well worth reading and is pretty much a very welcome reminder for me of what was more or less my philosophy. Need to work back to that. 🙂
Have I ever mentioned that Neil Gaiman once talked on my cell phone?
I’m pretty sure I even heard the message, if this is the time I’m thinking of. 🙂
*solemn nod* I suspect it is the same one.