[WWI] Wiki, was: W^D Models 1/72 RFC figures

[Andy Bannister]

I agree, but then us heretics should stick together now and then...
I think of Wikipedia as a good place to start, but definitely not gospel as
you say. If I understand the process, most, if not all of their articles can
be written by anyone and their dog but are reviewed, edited and updated
constantly by a great many people so are hardly the be-all and end-all of
fact. Still, they list plenty of sources that there's got to be a good basis
of truth in there somewhere.
 
A.

-----Original Message-----
From: wwi-bounces at wwi-models.org [mailto:wwi-bounces at wwi-models.org] On
Behalf Of ernest thomas
Sent: 20 January 2009 22:28
To: THE List!
Subject: Re: [WWI] W^D Models 1/72 RFC figures


I don't think it's fair to dismiss wiki entries like that. They're not
gospel, but not wildly inaccurate either. And if I'm not mistaken, Andy did
quote whatever source wiki quoted. I don't think the numbers were pulled out
of thin air. 

E.
Honor and Glory to our Ancestral Gods




> From: wed317 at mchsi.com
> To: wwi at wwi-models.org
> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:21:23 -0600
> Subject: Re: [WWI] W^D Models 1/72 RFC figures
> 
> 
> "According to Wikipedia" 
> 
> Nuff said. ;)
> 
> Warren
> 
> 


  _____  

Windows LiveT HotmailR: Chat. Store. Share. Do more with mail. See how it
works.
<http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_hm_justgotbetter_how
itworks_012009>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.wwi-models.org/pipermail/wwi/attachments/20090120/30c75939/attachment.html