The highlighted information below is taken from Wikipedia's own disclaimer. I put this up for those who continually post links to their site and may not know that the information within Wikipedia is only as true or honest as the person who submitted it.
The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.
Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields.
Wikipedia is a collaborative platform, with referees that edit contents and not an arbitrary or anarchic system.
Being free of charge, it is a powerful source and fortunately accurate and curated enough to be understood as a valid source as a quick referral to something not too deep or precise.
Wikipedia is not valid for research or for academic purposes, but to refer it on posts on Numista, I don´t see the problem...
1) I prefer to use Wikipedia as a link to refer rather than a ISBN that you may not find online. 90% of the situations, you need the info and act fast, not to dig or to write a academic state of art.
2) I tend to trust more on Wikipedia in some subjects rather than authors. Why? First, each author may have their own approach - ex: history, politics. Secondly, the author may be outdated and mislead you. Wikipedia tend to be updated.
3) Don´t trust Wikipedia. But it is a tool that should allow you to follow the path to the information you seek.
PS: I am not a Wikipedia volunteer or whatsoever, but I am grateful that we do have this platform, instead of referring "impossible-to-get" books in order to get sometimes a basic info.
Sorry to say but the same disclaimer should probably be written in every single book claiming to be fact, what's true today might not be true tomorrow!
The same criticisms could be aimed at Numista, with more justification.
Wikipedia does try to clear up falsehoods and misleading contributions but there is a subtle bias among the editors which shows. Overall though it's accurate at least regarding the basics. It's a gateway to better information and a great starting point.
Meanwhile Numista has common coins with mintages in the millions described as RARE or even ULTRA RARE.
Numista will never be fully taken seriously while this type of thing is allowed to continue. That's a real shame for those who work so hard to improve it.
Non illegitimis carborundum est. Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!
Quote: "pnightingale"[...] Numista has common coins with mintages in the millions described as RARE or even ULTRA RARE.
Numista will never be fully taken seriously while this type of thing is allowed to continue. That's a real shame for those who work so hard to improve it.
Good point. I have two things to say about this:
► The "Numista rarity index" in the catalogue should be called "Numista ownership index" or "Numista frequency index". If necessary, invert the number, so that the current "97" becomes a "3". People will get used to it within weeks and those pointless discussion about the rarity of coins based on this index will disappear from the forum.
► The "rare" and "ultra rare" (or any such evaluations) mentions should be deleted from the year-by-year listing in the catalogue as well. They serve no purpose and, in addition, rarity is meaningless without an index of "desirability". A coin or token may have a mintage of 300 ─which would be "ultra rare"─ but if nobody wants it, its desirability is low and it will go for a price below $100 or even below $50. Meanwhile, the 1931S Lincoln cent has a mintage of 866,000 and is worth $80─$140 in G─EF grades!
So, we should just let the mintage figures speak for themselves.
