Conversation started Dec 8, 2015 at 23:52.
Anonymous
Dec 8, 2015 23:52
Wikipedia is not in any sense reliable.
Anonymous
But it has lots of information.
user174558
So far, I only found out one factual error in it.
MετάEd
MετάEd
@JasperLoy Wikipedia? Or Wiktionary?
user174558
@MετάEd Wikipedia.
Anonymous
I wouldn't recommend anyone try to learn about grammar or linguistics more generally from Wikipedia.
user174558
Dec 8, 2015 23:54
Yes, we should use your 200 books instead.
Anonymous
It's a huge mixture of different frameworks presented in a mish-mash, often without any differentiation or indication that a term belongs to framework A or framework B, often misusing technical terms, with bad descriptions and recordings of pronunciation and such . . .
Anonymous
It often contradicts itself.
Anonymous
That doesn't mean it's entirely useless.
Anonymous
But you have to already know about the topic to figure out what's useful or not.
Anonymous
So if you do know something about the topic and you can judge how useful the information on a given page is at a given time, you might choose to link someone to it.
user174558
Dec 8, 2015 23:55
I did not imagine such a project would succeed.
user174558
But it turned out very well.
Anonymous
And there are linguists who are working to make Wikipedia a better resource. (And Wiktionary.)
Anonymous
And it's not like it's wrong about everything. (Though it's often not even wrong . . . )
Anonymous
But yeah, there are some serious issues there.
 
Conversation ended Dec 8, 2015 at 23:57.