__/ On Friday 26 August 2005 08:32, [Mikkel Møldrup-Lakjer] wrote : \__
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:dem2vi$2ppa$3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> I bet there are people lurking out there trying to just trip up the CIA
>> by spotting errors. The Factbook is far less likely to make mistakes when
>> compared with other sources. The exception would be governmental sites
>> that
>> are native rather than data that is centralised in the US bureaus.
>
> In my point of view even Wikipedia has more credibility than the CIA
> Factbook, whose data are often out of date, skewed by US foreign policy
> and flawed with blatant errors that do not appear in most handbooks that I
> use. But of course the handbooks that I use are not without copyright...
"Controversy about the Factbook arose in 1998 when British journalists
noticed it contained some glaring errors?most notably that "the United
Kingdom gained its independence in 1801". However, this has been corrected,
at least in the 2005 edition. [1]" [Wikipedia]
I guess you are right.
> The numbers in the CIA Factbook may be more realiable than the comments,
> though. Also, I must admit that it has been a couple of years since I
> reviewed the Factbook, and of course there's the possibility that it has
> improved greatly from one edition to another, though I doubt it.
>
> See also:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_World_Factbook
>
> Mikkel
It sure gets copied rather quickly. Here is an example I found by doing some
searches...
Original:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
Copies (remove XXXX's, I can't embed rel="nofollow" in UseNet):
http://www.XXXXnationmaster.com/country/us/Transportation
http://XXXXinfotut.com/geography/United-States/Transnational-Issues/
http://www.XXXXmaptown.com/geos/unitedstates.html
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz "This sig seemed like a good idea at the time..."
http://Schestowitz.com
|
|
