Foo - Well, this is kind of weird

The top 20 most revised articles on Wikipedia (http://www.glasshalflemon.com/blog/?p=27). I'm not really all that surprised about most of these, but "October 2003"?

it was a busy month: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2003

According to Wikipedia, yes -- but was it really that much busier than other recent months?

I would have though September 2001 would be heavily revised in hindsight.


But were talking about Wikipedia, not a history text from Oxford.

You could argue that history is about as relevant as the revision(ers).

You could argue that history is about as relevant as the revision(ers).


Or just as relevant.

The great thing about being a student of history is that no matter how much you disagree on the outcome, you cannot change or affect the events.

It's beautiful in it's cold mathematical truths, and yet warmed by the fuzzy logic of romanticism and personal bias.

Exactly. So, why is an Oxford-revised account any less .. romantic(ized) than a Wikipedial(ized) one.

I'm just saying ..

History is too about adjusting your filters, no? Or is it about indoctrinating others' filters as gospel.

Exactly. So, why is an Oxford-revised account any less .. romantic(ized) than a Wikipedial(ized) one.

I'm just saying ..

History is too about adjusting your filters, no? Or is it about indoctrinating others' filters as gospel.



I find the Oxford texts to contain the least amount of biases in the english language as far as historical documents are concerned.

Wikipedia suffers from less cohesive editing, too little cross-referenced research, and a lack of core standards.

It is entertaining for pop culture references, but I wouldn't use it for serious research. That's why god made libraries. And Eboo.

Amen.

Looks like a list of intro-level university paper subjects...