On 15/11/2010 20:27, Angus Rodgers wrote:
n't know
why. I'm usually impressed by the quality of the pages there.
It's pretty reliable for articles on mathematics, and, as far
as I can tell, for other subjects, too.

I agree, it has some very useful articles and the scientific stuff is
usually good.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/438900a.html.

"Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the
accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds. "

Are there some famous
examples of bad pages, which might explain this widespread
notion that it is unreliable? (Yes, of course I know that any-
one can edit it, so that it can never have final authority.)

Yes there are. I can't find any references but there was a case where a
famous person (but not so famous that I can remember who it was) was
incorrectly linked to the assassination of JFK for a joke and things
like that.