Wikipedia. So...how accurate is it?

Heh, I've also been told that Wikipedia would not be accepted as a reference site for research pages. A good example of why is the disclaimer on the entry about the "Mona Lisa" painting by Leonard da Vinci.

Quote:

Because of recent vandalism or other disruption, editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled. Such users may discuss changes, request unprotection, or create an account.

I had a debate with someone a while ago over some inaccurate wiki information on the entries pertaining to the Zoids "Chaotic Century"/"Guardian Force" anime. English Wikipedia lists those two titles as seperate series (34 vs 33 episodes), while Wikipedia Japan puts both under the series "Zoids" (67 episodes). Considering the Japanese animation production website ALSO lists it as one 67 episode series, I like to go with the Japanese info as "correct".

It's a sign of what a fandom can apply to a series, which ends up being considered "official" across that fandom, whether it actually is or not. I don't mind the distinction, I just don't like the false official-ness.

How ya doing, buddy?

Dinosaurs... oh gawd. XD

I remember when SheezyArt last had issues, and I found the wikipedia entry on it that was quite outright slandering the progress of the SheezyArt site and its content. I wish I had saved the entry, because it was changed later. It was pretty funny. I'll give Wiki credit that they seem to be pretty quick at fixing the outrageous stuff like that.

But yeah... if you really want more accurate information, I'd say get a book.

There's nowhere I can't reach.