h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

You know Arnie, its getting to the point where I can't tell whether you're taking the piss or not.

well in this case not. It boggles the mind that people would slam wikipedia for inaccuracy...

The complaint was not about Wikipedia, it was about the use of Wikipedia as a trusted source. And the implication that if we disagreed then our viewpoint isn't valid unless we take out time to go and fight an editing war with some guy that wrote up something he read in a book. Whatever.

Your viewpoint is valid. Your willingness to reject the accuracy of Wikipedia out of hand without making any attempt to fix it is just frustrating.

"fight an editing war with some guy that wrote up something he read in a book."

Ha, we should reject Wikipedia because it's just something some guy read in a book. A more reliable source would be something like...a book! One that lots of people agree on. A book that some guy wrote after he read things in other books.

Which is less logical, me trying to back up my points with a source of debatable accuracy, or someone who presents no source to back them up? If an opinion falls in the woods and there's no evidence around to support it, does it carry enough weight to make a sound?

No, you can reject Wikipedia. That's fair. You could find a source that refutes Chomsky's claim and Wikipedia, but neither of us wants to draw this out further.

I don't suppose anyone will be complaining at Zagreb for the 4 links he gave to Wikipedia earlier in this thread? That's another task that would be too much of a bother.

How about, we simply refrain from trying to make authoritative statements on historical scenarios and stick to a format of expressing and arguing opinion.

Be it on Wikipedia or in a book, secondary sources are not evidence. They're simply opinion, albeit probably a more informed one.