Can we trust Wikipedia the website?

[cawatawa]

Hi everybod

I was told that we can not consider the website Wikipedia as a source of reference .
Is that right?

The second question is :
Is the Algerian a dialect or a language?

Thank you

[BobK]

Hi everybod

I was told that we can not consider the website Wikipedia as a source of reference .
Is that right?

There's good and bad in it. Use it carefully.

The second question is :
Is the Algerian a dialect or a language?

Thank you

Someone (Wikipedia would tell you who ) said a language was 'a dialect with an army'. The line between them is thin, fuzzy, and arguable. Politics usually comes into it. Scots can be seen as a dialect of English, akin to Northumbrian. But on their web site Wir Ain Lied claim vociferously that it's a language. You'll get similar arguments about Algerian. Reliable authorities will line up on either side of the argument.

b

[konungursvia]

To me, they're two languages if they cannot be mutually understood by ordinary speakers without specific education in the other.

[5jj]

I was told that we can not consider the website Wikipedia as a source of reference .

Yes. A Wikipedia article is no better, and no worse, than the person who edited it last - perhaps ten seconds before you looked at it.

Wikipedia is a wonderful resource. I cannot now imagine life without it. I use it several times a day, every day of the year, but it has no value as a source of reference. We have no idea who edited the articles last. It is magnificent for finding information quickly and efficiently and, given that obvious misinformation is usually corrected within minutes by self-appointed editors, the information is usually accurate and very up-to-date.

But, you cannot quote as a reference an article that may have been written only ten minutes ago by the eleven-year-old thug who lives next door to you.