?

Instead of complaining that they don't have the resources to actually answer a particular question, wouldn't it be easier to just not answer the question at all?

Is that something they don't do anymore? I saw a cartoon and the elephant had tips on the tusks that were rounded rather than pointy.

To make them cast such a wide net they catch as many innocent people as possible.

Would such an awareness make them think twice about using Wikipedia as a source for anything?

I'm talking in the practical sense, not the theoretical sense. You can quote all the Wikipedia policies and guidelines you want, but when you factor in selective enforcement and use of the policies against the victims they supposedly protect, a very different picture emerges.

For example, "Windows Vista for Dummies," "Islam for Dummies"

Like, on the radio, the announcement is preceded by playing that piece? Op. 51, D. 733: No. 1 in D major

Or "alt. acct. of a troll" ? Wikipedia is one of the most popular non-porn (or at least not exclusively porn) websites out there and its Foundation raises millions of dollars at the drop of a hat. A study on the website of a scientific journal concluded Wikipedia is about as accurate as Britannica. One would think that defending such a website would be quite easy on the website's merits alone, without having to call critics names.

It's kind of like when Michael Moore pointed out George W. Bush was AWOL from the National Guard. The neo-cons' rebuttal wasn't some Guardsman coming forward and saying he and Dubya drilled together during the time he was allegedly AWOL. Their rebuttal was calling Michael Moore "fat"

If one doesn't care whether the information is right or not, wouldn't it just be easier to make something up and put it out of your mind? For example:

—Are kangaroos rodents?

—Must be, they have the ears like rats.

—That kind of makes sense. Good enough for me.

—Next on the agenda...

At least for me that's the case: when everything is going well, I don't like Mahler that much, regardless of whether the piece is happy or sad. But when there's reason for sadness, any of Mahler's compositions seems to speak directly to me. Also during my period.

How practical would it be to maintain the integrity of the more famous "numbers" (such as the Walkürenritt)?

Would they be surprised or not? Would they adjust their theory in any significant way?

I sometimes use the notes section to put a little reminder on the pronunciation of a term and things like that which my audience might or might not care to see. Sometimes I also put in extra details that would just clutter up the slide and which I might decide on the fly to say or not.

What sorts of functionality do such user scripts typically add?

Does it vary geographically (some people would say the Missa Solemnis K. 337 is undeservedly obscure in America)?

The one that looks like a backwards P and the one that looks like two S's put together.

With close to 100% being very good and close to 0% being very bad.

Like "un hombre, una mujer" but "dos hombres, dos mujeres." Also, if a group has both men and women, which decides the gender of the number? I thought it was whoever there is the most of, but a Mexican friend of mine says one man among any number of women is enough to make the group male.

And if it's absolutely relevant and necessary to do so, how thick should the disclaimers be laid on?

I'm listening to his String Quartet No. 2 from the Naxos Music Library. I'm sure the booklet would tell me something if I bought the CD, but at this point I'm not convinced I even want to do that. I turned to Oxford Music Online, and it turned up no relevant results. At this point I was thinking Wikipedia might have something, figuring perhaps a bit of unreliable info would be better than nothing, but it has nothing.