Starship Asterisk*

Thanks bystander. I've now corrected the link and it works fine. :D

[quote="DavidLeodis"]The link in my post above does not seem to work. I have obviously done something wrong. Please accept my apologies. :oops:[/quote]
It should be [b]http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa[color=#0000FF].gov[/color]/apod/ap091006.html[/b]
or more simply [b]http://[color=#0000FF]apod.nasa.gov[/color]/apod/ap091006.html[/b].

The link in my post above does not seem to work. I have obviously done something wrong. Please accept my apologies. :oops:

Thanks to bystander I have now corrected the link and it now works OK. :)

I have another comment about links. In the explanation to the APOD of October 6 2009 [url]http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap091006.html[/url] the line "The vista spans three times the diameter of the Moon, while the highest resolution image version occupies over 350 million pixels" has a link to that highest resolution image which, in my innocence I used. After just over 21MB had downloaded and with no indication how much more there was to go I cancelled. Using the "above picture" link I then discovered that the highest resolution image was very likely to be 698MB. :shock: OK, perhaps I should have realised that over 350 million pixels would be a very very large file but I just assumed it would be a just a bit larger than a normal linked image. If it was a link to the 698MB image then the explanation should have stated something. Please note that I am not complaining about APODs, which I still find extremely interesting.

[quote="Indigo_Sunrise"]Anyway, apologies for any misunderstanding. I'm never as clear or articulate as I wish I could be.[/quote]
No apologies necessary. Any secondary source- even a generally high quality one like Wikipedia- should be approached with at least a bit of skepticism. An article can contain inaccuracies, and in the case of Wikipedia, deliberate sabotage (which normally gets cleaned up quickly, but you can catch the information at the wrong time).

FWIW, before providing a link to a Wikipedia article here I always read it first, to make sure there are no serious problems. I know a couple of other regular posters have said in the past they do the same. On the whole, I find the science articles in Wikipedia well matched to the technical level of many discussions on this forum- they tend to broadly cover the subject, provide a reasonable but not overwhelming amount of detail, and generally have a nice list of references for anybody interested in exploring deeper.

Okay, okay, okay - I'll concede that the scientific articles are accurate, correct, et al.
I didn't mean to come across as a wikipedia hater - far from it. There is a lot of useful and accurate information to be found there. Many times when I'm searching for something, that site is among the top returned hits, and I've learned a lot from it.
I haven't relied on Wikipedia for scientific information or read much in the way of their scientific articles, therefore I don't have a frame of reference for how accurate they may be. I had based my initial comment on [i]other[/i] articles I've read at that site, which were in obvious need of editing. Not all entries are 'questionable', I understand. I will refrain from any further generalizing remarks (i.e. lumping all Wikipedia content together.)

Anyway, apologies for any misunderstanding. I'm never as clear or articulate as I wish I could be.

[b][color=#BF0000]I *heart* Wikipedia!!!![/color][/b]

8)

[quote="Chris Peterson"][quote="Indigo_Sunrise"]My only beef would be that sometimes too many of the links go to 'Wikipedia', which as we all know can be subject to questionable editing.....[/quote]
On the whole, however, Wikipedia is an extremely good source for scientific information. I'd trust its science articles over what you would find in an edited encyclopedia, like Britannica (an assertion that is supported by studies). Most of the problems with Wikipedia are in subjects not related to science.[/quote]
I fully agree, Chris. Regarding Scientific subjects, I find that Wikipedia is much more useful than Enc. Brit., for example. Some people do not realize that they may edit, off their own iniative, anything which they know to be incorrect. I do not know how the managers of the system operate their reviewing procedure, but on the three times I have performed an "edit" there has been an automatic acceptance of my emendation.

The "questionable editing," to which you refer, is confined to loose topics, for example current religious beliefs in California, all sorts of political smut, personal animosities and so on. They can hardly refer to topics such as the Goldbach Conjecture.

[quote="Indigo_Sunrise"]My only beef would be that sometimes too many of the links go to 'Wikipedia', which as we all know can be subject to questionable editing.....[/quote]
On the whole, however, Wikipedia is an extremely good source for scientific information. I'd trust its science articles over what you would find in an edited encyclopedia, like Britannica (an assertion that is supported by studies). Most of the problems with Wikipedia are in subjects not related to science.

My only beef would be that sometimes too many of the links go to 'Wikipedia', which as we all know can be subject to questionable editing.....

I like to use the links to further information and/or images in the explanations to APODs but for quite some time now there are just far too many links in my opinion. The problem is that until you have seen what a link brings up you have no idea if it was going to be worth clicking on it. It's now got to the stage that I'm thinking of no longer using the links. I realise that many of you may see no problem with the ever increasing number of links, either because you don't use them or you may even like more, but I hope you do not at least mind me raising this issue.