What matters is the ability to introduce errors or specific POVs into the source document which deals directly with how easy it is to edit the source. Even if the error is transient someone reading the article will get bad information which means the source is less than reliable as a primary source. The statistical percentage of errors is not the issue although one could Rgue that any measure of errors in Wikipedia is subject to large error bars because one doesn't know if someone has corrected the error or introduced new ones.

Well, it started out out as bing referred to as "wholly crap" as in "completely crap" but given the deep Anglo Saxon religious roots it got misinterpreted as "Holy crap" and that is what stuck. Or something like that...

"Ja, Ve investigated but der Amerikans undt Birtish vouldn't answer zee question and zee others vent all Sgt Schulz on uns"

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, leaders realized such a prosecution would open a can of worms that could lead to very embarrassing disclosures about German activities and complicity in the spying. No politician wants to be caught in that mess, and the spymasters are quite happy to keep working together while the politicians publicly denounce the spying for their own political ends. I would not be surprised if sone of the professionals are going "We have too get some of that stuff for ourselves" and "Holy crap. They can do that?"

While I agree Wikipedia generally comes out OK, the real danger, IMHO, is from its edibility. People view it at a point in time and thus the quality and accuracy of the information varies depending on the last edit. Couple that with a perception that Wikipedia is an authoritative source and you have a situation where someone can get bad information while believing it to be accurate. In fairness, that is not a Wikipedia unique issue but rather a problem with how people view internet information; where the are small islands of knowledge floating in giant seas of crap. Wikipedia is good as a general reference and a starting point for information but what you find needs to be verified by independent sources; especially if you are relying on it for health related issues. Of course, that is true for dead tree sources as well.

I am shocked. Shocked. No one would use a widely accessed platform to push a POV nor would it be adequately vetted by professionals for accuracy and completeness and edits limited to trusted sources. Add in that their are many more people who think they are experts that aren't and it is a wonder that Wikipedia's accuracy is above 0%.

Sorry about two replies. This could all be a eats for some more involved attack beyond simple locks and they don't care about the locked devices or payment.

Possibly. Problem is now that they know it works how do they let people know where to pay; plus PayPal is unlikely to allow payment so they need to find another untraceable way to collect cash and notify their victims before Apple does a fix.

That, and PayPal also says the account doesn't exist. Then again, just because they are smart enough to hack the Apple servers does';t mean they aren't stupid in other ways; or maybe are arrogant enough to feel they are untouchable?

A good digital SLR with a quality lens and a copy stand should be able to make a decent enough copy for preservation purposes.

You won't get that decent of a print anyway at those places. I'd go with a decent online shop that can supply machine specific color calibrations and calibrate the monitor if you want a decent print.

Actually, it probably wan't a work for hire; the contract probably allowed the photographer to keep the rights to the photo. After all, selling prints is how they made money. If you want the negatives and rights the costs for the shot would be higher since they would not make any money off of prints.

Largely irrelevant. They photographer, unless the contract allowed it, couldn't sell the picture for say an advertisement for a store without a model release but simply being the subject doesn't give them rights to the picture. YMMV, depending on local laws and how famous the subject.

Given the circumstances, I would go ahead and make a digital copy. I doubt anyone will come after them.

They do;as do the publishers. It starts with the letter F and with the letter U.

Gotta luv speal cheakers...

is how do revert to older versions? I use a program that saves every change so while a crash would not result in lost work I can't revert to an earlier version unless I save a copy first before editing. Fortunately I use another program that saves a copy every time I use Carl-s so I can roll back from its copies.

The problem is it's how the jury interprets the story the lawyers craft around the word, not the word.

In addition, they left out the Lockheed L-188 Electra which also had a series of early crashes due to a design flaw called whirl mode flutter which resulted in the wings diverging from the fuselage's flight path. Nonetheless, it soldiered on and a variant still flies today as the P-3 Orion.