Yet scientific analysis shows that the error rate in wikipedia is not statistically significantly bigger than the error rate in Encyclopedia Brittanica.
Obviously having multiple references stating the same thing as a wikipedia article is even better but to discard a claim because it is supported by a wikipedia reference is just plain silly.
A source that links to a source that links to a source that links to the first source is what causes wikipedia to fail as a credible source.
Scientific analysis proves Wikipedia is a very good resource (and Nature is on of the best scientific journals in the world) so Iām kind of wondering what youāre basing your opinion on?
the 4/5s rape study. Maybe you have heard of it.
xD all I ever see from you are hateful prejudice posts against American whenever it comes up. You also tend to KNOW YOU ARE RIGHT when you post things and come off as arrogant. I appreciate some of your incite into gems, but your personality prevents me from actually thinking you are a very likable person and at this point everything you say i take with a grain of salt.
You opened up by making a claim that Canada has more guns per capita than the US, but has less gun violence. I didnāt believe that to be true, so took 30 seconds to check an easily accessible source which confirmed my suspicion. Iām not going to argue about the credibility of wikipedia, which others have already pointed out is generally reliable. If you donāt like my source, take 2 minutes and find one that supports your position. If you canāt find one, maybe consider the possibility that you were proceeding from an incorrect assumption.
Here is a second source recently published by a criminologist who has spent significant portions of his life rigorously researching this very topic. If you donāt like wikipedia, how about expert knowledge? 6 Things to Know about Mass Shootings in America | Scientific American
This is written for a general audience and isnāt cited like an academic paper, but you can click through to his sources.
While the numbers reported here are somewhat different from the Wikipedia page, they are in the same ballpark. And while we donāt have a national long-gun registry anymore, we still have a national restricted firearms registry. Between that and the information from the now scrapped and never complete long gun registry would have given social scientists a reasonable basis to make an estimation of the number of guns in Canada. I doubt very much that they are off by a factor of 4 or 5, which is what would be necessary for your original assertion to be correct.
How anyone ever thought this was a good idea for a thread, Iāll never know.
Iām locking this thing and throwing the key into a lake.