We were issued with the Douglas Protractor for navigation but Portland Plotters soon came on the scene
It’s the one used for French navigation exams....takes a bit of getting use to
What else do they have in their range. Can I buy whisky like this?
Just freeze it an add to whisky
That's the "regle Cras", I have one deep in the chart table drawer with all the charts above it, never been able to use it.
I found it counter intuitive…but with a little reading, a bit of YouTube and lots of practice it can be masteredThat's the "regle Cras", I have one deep in the chart table drawer with all the charts above it, never been able to use it.
Gradians rather than degrees
Gradian - WikipediaPeut etre.....
It's better to have multiple authors rather than one. Less bias.
A set of encyclopedias has multiple authors...perhaps one editorial team
Usually one topic, one author. Bias ensues.
Both approaches have pros and cons. A few years ago, I think it was Nature who analysed the number of errors in Britannica and Wikipedia. I don't think the difference was significant; Britannica actually came out a bit worse. This summary is by no means comprehensive. The bottom line is that I use Wikipedia but unless I have knowledge of the field, I try and cross-check by chasing references. I don't use Britannica simply because I don't have free access to it! But I didn't use it even when I had access to a library with a copy on the shelf. Neither is sufficiently authoritative to be quoted in research; you always try and go to original material.
| Britannica | Wikipedia | ||
| Pro | Articles written by leading experts in their field. Strong editorial policy. |
| |
| Con | Slow to respond to new knowledge. Subject to bias if the field does not have a strong consensus. No rapid mechanism to correct errors. Inconvenient to search. Expensive!. | Can be edited by people without expert knowledge who regurgitate un-authoritative sources. Some editorial policies deter experts in small fields from contributing (No original research)
Differences in viewpoint can lead to edit wars! |
Longer ago than I thought - 2005. Internet encyclopaedias go head to head - Nature
What is positive is that editing and the process of debating inputs are open to view. You don't get that in an edited print collection.
Certainly. I too edited a major topographic database, which was freely available - these days we'd probably use a Creative Commons license for it, but that didn't exist in 1993 when we first published it. But we put it on the Internet as soon as that was feasible in 1998. And as you say, making the process open is important. I use Wikipedia a lot, but it's as well to be aware of it's weaknesses as well as its strengths.