Wiki, in concept, is marvelous. In practice, it's only as good as those knowledgeable people who take the time to review/correct it. But even then, it's subject to the same limitations of vision as "official" publications are. Mark,Thanks for the update. I've been refered to Wiki and found it lacking. Didn't realize it was editable. Most of the research I tend to do is either plant (viticulture specifically) or chemistry based (oenology) ...old fields where proof exists and sometimes there are new ways of doing things to explore. (ie uses of various composts to revitalize ageing plants or what is it we smell in xxx compound) Theoretical science needs (IMHO) to be vetted over and over until proved beyond doubt (ok so sometimes decades between theory and acceptance). Is there a better way? I can't say because I tend to have a jaded, cynical view on most things, except 'science fiction' that is at least plausible. WyneFool
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra