Originally Posted By: milang
Originally Posted By: ricnunes
Don't get me wrong, but putting Janes and Wikipedia in the same basket (of "non-reliable" military information sources) isn't accurate!
While I do agree that the information in wikipedia must be taken with a "grain of salt" and while there's the chance that some sporadic information may not be 100% accurate regarding Jane's, afterall ANY information source doesn't matter where it comes from is prone to errors/inacuracies, but the "level of accuracy" between Wikipedia and Janes is definitly not the same and I would say that the level of accuracy regarding Jane's information is VERY HIGH afterall it's a know FACT that Jane's information is used by some real military forces and intelligence agencies.


ok... guys please slow down every one in here have a personal idea & personal information and personal style thumbsup

we have to respect to all of guys ... rolleyes at different situation janes and wiki give good info to user.
and at different situation hpasp with sam simulator give good info to user.

but i choose hpasp with sam simulator info, because this knowledge is Functional

PS: hpasp create realistic simulator for better Injection info to user mind ... this idea it was great
.. but one website like wiki or other do not have any way to Injection data very well ... info on website's good only for beginners



I'm NOT saying that Jane's information/sources are better or more reliable than Hpasp information/sources or vice versa for that matter.
What I'm saying is that Jane's information/sources ARE BETTER than Wikipedia!
Hpasp hinted that Jane's and Wikipedia information and sources "level of accuracy" are similar which is NOT true and this isn't just a personal oppinion but it's a FACT!