Correction

[lucile123]

Bonjour, pouvez-vous me corriger ceci svp:

For 10 years, the diffusion of the knowledge has passed by Internet and search engines. Like the encyclopaedia born of progress of printing works, Wikipédia results from new information technologies and was created in 2001.Wikipédia had success because it is free while at the same time it could be a commercial good. The encyclopaedia and Wikipédia have all two for goal to diffuse the knowledge nearby larger audience, with the only difference that Wikipédia is written by the Net surfers. But then is the documentation found on Wikipédia reliable? Yes, because indeed more one article is consulted, more it is corrected and more its contents are reliable. As a comparison between an encyclopaedia Britannique and Wikipédia shows it besides, the percentage of errors of these 2 sources are similar. In addition, Wikipédia takes as a starting point the the Open Source and does not attack the Church like the Encyclopaedia. It has a democratic aiming but functions all the same thanks to the subsidies.

Merci.

[yveslouis]

Bonjour, pouvez-vous me corriger ceci svp:

For 10 years, the diffusion of the knowledge has passed by through the Internet and search engines. Like the Encyclopaedia(, which was) born of from the progress of printing works, Wikipedia results from new information technologies and was created in 2001. Wikipedia had success was successful because it is was free while at the same time it could be a commercial good. The Encyclopaedia and Wikipedia both have all two for goal are aiming to diffuse the knowledge nearby to a larger audience, with the only difference that Wikipédia is written by the Netsurfers. But then is the documentation found on Wikipedia reliable? Yes, (it is) because indeed the more one article is consulted, the more it is corrected and the more its contents are reliable. As a comparison between an the Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipédia shows it besides (Je ne comprends pas), the percentage of errors of these 2 sources are similar. In addition, Wikipedia takes as a starting point the the Open Source (*) and does not attack the Church unlike the Encyclopaedia. It has a democratic aiming but functions all the same thanks to the subsidies subsidization .

(*) Place le COD le plus près possible du verbe. J'aurais dit, plus simplement "Wikipedia is open source."

Merci.

[lucile123]

Merci,

Quand vous mettez (, which was) (ligne 2), est ce qu'il faut que je l'ajoute?

(Je ne comprends pas):

Comme le montre d’ailleurs une comparaison entre une encyclopédie Britannique et Wikipédia, le pourcentage d’erreurs de ces 2 sources sont similaires. Par ailleurs, Wikipédia s’inspire de l’Open Source et ne s’attaque pas comme l’Encyclopédie à l’Eglise.

oui, je pense qu'il faut enlever "shows it besides".

Merci.

[Jean B]

Merci,

Quand vous mettez (, which was) (ligne 2), est ce qu'il faut que je l'ajoute ? => Non, ce n'est pas obligatoire. Quand on place un ou plusieurs éléments entre parenthèses, cela signifie que ce n'est pas vraiment indispensable.

(Je ne comprends pas):

[...]

[lucile123]

Merci.