No. Indeed, the case is quite the opposite. You and a couple other people are trying to introduce an irrelevant definition in order to suit your argument (and lol at "everyone else" when several people are saying the same thing I am, and badlydrawnjeff expressly chimed in to say as much).
The question is about the reliability of wikipedia. You say "Is Wikipedia Reliable[?] Firstly, what is reliable[?] Is the Encyclopaedia Britannica reliable? Should we expect there to be no mistakes? [..] No source is 100% reliable." Ok. Then you advance your position: "if you're after scientific or technical information, Wikipedia is every bit as good as EB. Indeed, Wikipedia is increasingly becoming an acceptable reference in peer reviewed journal articles..." That's interesting. Why is this distinction relevant? You, appropriately enough, by tell us why: "One [..] has to keep in mind that different topics have different levels of accuracy. A scientific topic is not going to be as disputed as a History topic; it's the nature of the fields... There have, however, been some serious and real criticisms of some of the historical pages (Albania comes to mind). However, this is just representative of the fact that History is, by the very nature of the subject, disputed. If you think that the knowledge you have about an Historical event isn't disputed (beyond rather irrelevant things such as the people/nations involved, dates and places), it's probably because you haven't read a wide enough array of sources."
Ok. Let's side aside the question of whether your characterization of the field of history is accurate. The distinction you've introduced is that of whether a claim is disputed, such that we can expect wikipedia to be "every bit as good as EB" when it is dealing with "scientific or technical information", which is characterized by claims that are "not going to be as disputed." Great, that's a substantial position.
Unfortunately, it's an incorrect position. I have pointed out why: in fact, "wikipedia is incredibly uneven and suffers from outrageous misinformation on technical subjects." I've given an example: "A good example would be the Plato pages, which for about six years were completely written around a theory that Plato's intention in the dialogues was to show how stupid Socrates is." I've made it relevant to your standard of measurement: "Things like EB often suffer from sparse or idiosyncratic information on fringe subjects, but Plato is not a fringe subject." Your claim that wikipedia is "every bit as good as EB" when it is dealing with "scientific or technical information" is incorrect.
Now, let's look at the response to my objection here. As an aside, the entire thread arising from this is tangential. I can give you examples from biology and psychology as well, and sealwhiskers has already posted links where professionals detail such offenses in these fields. So the idea that I am trying to pull a fast one on you by talking about philosophy rather than science is a red herring, for reasons that have already been discussed here.
But let's treat this red herring anyway, in order to assess the charge that I am being unreasonable. The charge is that the counterexample I in fact gave (notwithstanding that it's uncontentious that I could have given a counterexample which wouldn't succumb to this objection, as just noted, making this entire thread, especially given how bitter it is, a transparent exercise in bad faith)-- that the counterexample I in fact gave does not meet the standards of the distinction you laid out in the OP, and that it is plain to "everyone" that I am simply acting in bad faith when I suppose otherwise.
no subject
The question is about the reliability of wikipedia. You say "Is Wikipedia Reliable[?] Firstly, what is reliable[?] Is the Encyclopaedia Britannica reliable? Should we expect there to be no mistakes? [..] No source is 100% reliable." Ok. Then you advance your position: "if you're after scientific or technical information, Wikipedia is every bit as good as EB. Indeed, Wikipedia is increasingly becoming an acceptable reference in peer reviewed journal articles..." That's interesting. Why is this distinction relevant? You, appropriately enough, by tell us why: "One [..] has to keep in mind that different topics have different levels of accuracy. A scientific topic is not going to be as disputed as a History topic; it's the nature of the fields... There have, however, been some serious and real criticisms of some of the historical pages (Albania comes to mind). However, this is just representative of the fact that History is, by the very nature of the subject, disputed. If you think that the knowledge you have about an Historical event isn't disputed (beyond rather irrelevant things such as the people/nations involved, dates and places), it's probably because you haven't read a wide enough array of sources."
Ok. Let's side aside the question of whether your characterization of the field of history is accurate. The distinction you've introduced is that of whether a claim is disputed, such that we can expect wikipedia to be "every bit as good as EB" when it is dealing with "scientific or technical information", which is characterized by claims that are "not going to be as disputed." Great, that's a substantial position.
Unfortunately, it's an incorrect position. I have pointed out why: in fact, "wikipedia is incredibly uneven and suffers from outrageous misinformation on technical subjects." I've given an example: "A good example would be the Plato pages, which for about six years were completely written around a theory that Plato's intention in the dialogues was to show how stupid Socrates is." I've made it relevant to your standard of measurement: "Things like EB often suffer from sparse or idiosyncratic information on fringe subjects, but Plato is not a fringe subject." Your claim that wikipedia is "every bit as good as EB" when it is dealing with "scientific or technical information" is incorrect.
Now, let's look at the response to my objection here. As an aside, the entire thread arising from this is tangential. I can give you examples from biology and psychology as well, and
But let's treat this red herring anyway, in order to assess the charge that I am being unreasonable. The charge is that the counterexample I in fact gave (notwithstanding that it's uncontentious that I could have given a counterexample which wouldn't succumb to this objection, as just noted, making this entire thread, especially given how bitter it is, a transparent exercise in bad faith)-- that the counterexample I in fact gave does not meet the standards of the distinction you laid out in the OP, and that it is plain to "everyone" that I am simply acting in bad faith when I suppose otherwise.