Dictionary in Leopard, wikipedia support.

[Markleshark]

That is an option.

...

Then your problem is? Stubbornness? You know what... Enjoy Vista.

 

[shigzeo]

merriam? what is that?

what happened to an american version of the oxford? that is gone to all hell if they use something else

 

[gothiquegirrl]

Well then it really is quite simple, don't use it. See that 'Wikipedia' button in the Dictionary? Don't ****ing press it.

tee hee... I know it's been said before... In this thread too... but I think I might just LOVE you!

 

[yetanotherdave]

open dictionary, preferences, scroll down to wikipedia, remove the tick in the "on" column. And lo, wikipedia is gone.

Think of it another way, apple putting the underlying support for web resources in like that means potentailly devs can write plugins for any web resource they like as an add on for dictionary, I hear that you don't like wikipedia, but you have got to admit that's cool, no?

 

[bubblegum80]

open dictionary, preferences, scroll down to wikipedia, remove the tick in the "on" column. And lo, wikipedia is gone.

Think of it another way, apple putting the underlying support for web resources in like that means potentailly devs can write plugins for any web resource they like as an add on for dictionary, I hear that you don't like wikipedia, but you have got to admit that's cool, no?

In all honesty, is that a real option?

Thanks for your input.

 

[shigzeo]

Its not the "major" subjects I'm talking about. Its the small things, especially relating to foreign cultures. Japanese or French bands as an example. In fact, there is enough trouble relating to articles for bands from England and the United States on the Wikipedia too. Among many other "smaller" subjects.



I have the right to voice my opinion, be upset, and reply to comments.

It is not trolling.

really mate, id love to hear your take on japanese and german bands - how much better it will be than anything else. where are you from again? and how does that relate? you are a troll

 

[yetanotherdave]

In all honesty, is that a real option?

Thanks for your input.

absolutely it is a real option

 

[Markleshark]

Theres an option not to have it?

This is an outrage! I'm switching to Vista!

 

[bubblegum80]

really mate, id love to hear your take on japanese and german bands - how much better it will be than anything else. where are you from again? and how does that relate? you are a troll

The point was, there is many problems with the Wikipedia.

 

[bubblegum80]

Theres an option not to have it?

This is an outrage! I'm switching to Vista!

Did you need a masters degree to become an underwater fireman?

 

[Samuel88]

You can find any of that information quickly, and easily via a search engine like google. In fact, I found it less than a minute.

The good thing about Wikipedia isn't that it has exclusive information, but rather that it collects it all to one site that is reguraly updated and watched by people who are interested in the subject. Its weakness is obvious, but this weakness is being far outweighed by the quickness and seriousness of the community. In other words, Wikipedia is only as strong as its community, and now when the community is strong, so is Wikipedia.

This is not an argument to use Wikipedia in research. Frankly, you shouldn't be using any encyclopedia for proper research, as nothing but specialized literature are accurate enough for the purpose.

Even the most famous encyclopedias contain errors, and in fact, a recent study which was published in Nature shows that the error-difference between Wikipedia and the well-respected Britannica is marginal. Serious errors were as many in both, and although marginal errors were slightly higher in Wikipedia, Britannica was in no way free of errors. A recapitulation of the study can be found here.

Wikipedia is one of the best pages out there when it comes to brief information on a subject, which is not very specialized. For me, as a student studying history, I would never use one of their pages as a footnote. But if I want to know very brief information about a people I haven't heard of before, I turn to Wikipedia for 3-4 sentences so I get an idea of what I am reading about.

 

[bubblegum80]

The good thing about Wikipedia isn't that it has exclusive information, but rather that it collects it all to one site that is reguraly updated and watched by people who are interested in the subject. Its weakness is obvious, but this weakness is being far outweighed by the quickness and seriousness of the community. In other words, Wikipedia is only as strong as its community, and now when the community is strong, so is Wikipedia.

This is not an argument to use Wikipedia in research. Frankly, you shouldn't be using any encyclopedia for proper research, as nothing but specialized literature are accurate enough for the purpose.

Even the most famous encyclopedias contain errors, and in fact, a recent study which was published in Nature shows that the error-difference between Wikipedia and the well-respected Britannica is marginal. Serious errors were as many in both, and although marginal errors were slightly higher in Wikipedia, Britannica was in no way free of errors. A recapitulation of the study can be found here.

Wikipedia is one of the best pages out there when it comes to brief information on a subject, which is not very specialized. For me, as a student studying history, I would never use one of their pages as a footnote. But if I want to know very brief information about a people I haven't heard of before, I turn to Wikipedia for 3-4 sentences so I get an idea of what I am reading about.

It is the "fandom" that ruins the Wikipedia, along with some other issues.

However, articles that provide extensive references are quite good.

Edit: These problems mostly revolve around the English version of the Wikipedia.