Page 2 of 2
Re: perhaps an odd rifle question
Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 8:06 pm
by seamusTX
Wikipedia is not a primary source. It is useful as "Cliff Notes" on millions of topics, and a reference to better sources.
- Jim
Re: perhaps an odd rifle question
Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:08 pm
by E10
seamusTX wrote:There are many subjective terms in the field of firearms. Why isn't a Tommy gun called a carbine? It is a short rifle.
- Jim
I might not know about carbines, but I do know about submachine guns - they shoot pistol bullets. The Uzi shoots the 9 mm Parabellum, the Thompson the .45 ACP.
Re: perhaps an odd rifle question
Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 8:17 am
by KaiserB
seamusTX wrote:I don't accept anything on Wikipedia without corroborating it elsewhere, but the articles on firearms that I have read were accurate. I'm surprised that whoever manages the site keeps those topics clean. There are so many anti-RKBA goofballs.
- Jim
The concept of Wikipedia is a good one...the problem is "fact checking" is left to the individual editor. Thus the information presented may included statements of opinion rather than statements of fact. If some controls were added to Wiki it would probably make it better.
Re: perhaps an odd rifle question
Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 12:30 pm
by HankB
The Annoyed Man wrote: . . . That's the thing about Wiki. The information changes, and that makes it somewhat unreliable as a source.
Can't argue with that, but note that many articles include footnotes to other sources . . . if you're really interested in a topic, going to the sources cited in the footnotes will probably get you to fairly reliable information. (Assuming the source isn't the Brady Center, DNC, or some such - use a little judgement!!
)