[akCard]

Kinda funny that that page shows both the good and bad of Wikipedia in one article: it does a pretty good job of citing its references but then blows it badly by incorrectly noting the paper at which Garvin works.

How hard could it have been for the author (authoress??) to double-check that bit?

[akCard]

Kinda funny that that page shows both the good and bad of Wikipedia in one article: it does a pretty good job of citing its references but then blows it badly by incorrectly noting the paper at which Garvin works.

How hard could it have been for the author (authoress??) to double-check that bit?