Re: It would be interesting to compare Wikipedia's error rate with Orlowski's
> "For Wikipedia's birthday this year, we highlighted sixteen of Wikipedia's "fake stories" –
> although it could have been 16,000."
> Sorry you fail at reading comprehension...
How can that quote from the article be interpreted in any way other than as a clear implication that there are at least 16,000 fake stories on Wikipedia? And consequently, how does asking for supporting evidence imply that that the enquirer was incapable of "reading comprehension"?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
