was 100% accurate. I challenge those who have claimed above that Wpedia is effectively worthless to provide a link to a Wpage on an uncontroversial subject that really is downright wrong. I have a lot of problems with Wpedia - the douchebaggery of Wales, the egotistic posturing of admins, etc but it really isn't bad enough to consider it to be mainly, or even significantly, "rubbish". When my kids' teachers complain that Wpedia isn't always right I agree - but it is *good* to teach them not to rely on any single 'authority'. Check your sources, and apply critical thinking. Even when reading El Reg. Re: People talk about the inaccuracy of Wpedia... Re: People talk about the inaccuracy of Wpedia... "I challenge those who have claimed above that Wpedia is effectively worthless to provide a link to a Wpage on an uncontroversial subject that really is downright wrong." I certainly don't claim that it is effectively worthless, but there are plenty of examples where duff information sits along perfectly good information. For example, when Norman Wisdom died, some news stories stated that, along with other songs he had written, he co-wrote 'White Cliffs of Dover' -- all perfectly bunk but they had taken it from Wikipedia. Now, arguably that's a bit of an extreme example as someone was being mischievous, but I think it it's illustrates the point. There have been times that I've read something that was stated as a fact or as the accepted belief, when it