WWII in real-time

Hey guys, I'm sure some of you will be interested in this, especially you twitter fiends!

https://twitter.com/RealTimeWWII

An interesting initiative that tweets regularly with what WOULD be happening in WWII right now in real-time. We'll have to wait a couple of years for it to catch up to where CoH2 starts off, but interesting nevertheless.

RealTimeWWII, about as reliable as wikipedia.

It's still awesome. I enjoy the tweets very much.

We'll have to wait a couple of years for it to catch up to where CoH2 starts off, but interesting nevertheless.

Huh? They're in 1941, so Aug.4 of 1941... Operation Barbarrossa is underway.

One of today's tweets:

German southern advance has split into vast pincer, closing around Kiev- in furious race to take city while good summer weather lasts.

RealTimeWWII, about as reliable as wikipedia.

...actually there have been comparative studies that show Wikipedia has become more accurate than traditional encyclopedias like Encarta. In addition, if compared to the others, Wikipedia shows more depth of knowledge about shared subjects. Compare a 500 word entry on Encarta to the basically unlimited word count of a Wikipedia entry (Abraham Lincoln for example).

The whole idea that Wikipedia isn't "academic" stems from a variety of reasons that date back to the sites infancy. Since then they've had to legally beef up the regulation of the site and the requirements for a post's publication.

I find it's a good place for general background information and, since you now have to provide references and citations (some with links to scholarly articles, books, etc), a great and handy springboard to broader studies.

Wikipedia is also becoming the go-to place where sites such as about.com go to simply copy and paste the info to their own site.

Some things on Wikipedia can certainly be disputed, but to say Wikipedia isn't "reliable" is somewhat inaccurate (no pun intended).

I'll be honest, I loathe twitter with a passion and never use it! I only glanced over a few tweets, seen that is was good and thought I'd be a community-humping fellow by sharing the link

I've been following that for several months now, it's interesting

The whole idea that Wikipedia isn't "academic" stems from a variety of reasons that date back to the sites infancy.

Not entirely. Another problem is that citing webpages by many authors is simply not acceptable in the realm of science, as opposed to citing static text by a single author (that may also be an authority on the subject).

been following this twitter account for a while now! very interesting!
hopefully other members of the community will like it also!

...actually there have been comparative studies that show Wikipedia has become more accurate than traditional encyclopedias like Encarta. In addition, if compared to the others, Wikipedia shows more depth of knowledge about shared subjects. Compare a 500 word entry on Encarta to the basically unlimited word count of a Wikipedia entry (Abraham Lincoln for example).

The whole idea that Wikipedia isn't "academic" stems from a variety of reasons that date back to the sites infancy. Since then they've had to legally beef up the regulation of the site and the requirements for a post's publication.

I find it's a good place for general background information and, since you now have to provide references and citations (some with links to scholarly articles, books, etc), a great and handy springboard to broader studies.

Wikipedia is also becoming the go-to place where sites such as about.com go to simply copy and paste the info to their own site.

Some things on Wikipedia can certainly be disputed, but to say Wikipedia isn't "reliable" is somewhat inaccurate (no pun intended).

Even though Wikipedia evolves, Wikipedia and about.com are still not reliable and cannot be used as viable sources. Nor can they be used as a "springboard" to other sources. RealTimeWWII is not getting any academic credits either, making it a very doubtful source, only embraced by those that accept shadows of truth.