The windchill factor

[rjkh]

How does that work then?

[Quizmonster]

Click here for an answer.

[rjkh]

As much as Wiki is inconsistent (see Amadou Konte if it is still there) cheers.)

[Quizmonster]

Wikipedia is a good source for a quick informal fact-check. However, one should - as you say, Rjkh - be careful about placing too much credence on information provided by it. As its founder, Jimmy Wales, himself says:

"If what you are after is �Who won the World Cup in 1986?', it's going to be fine. If you want to know something more esoteric, or something controversial, you should probably use a second reference - at least."

Unlike, say, the Encyclop�dia Britannica, it lacks real authority or any scholarly credentials. However, the scientific journal �Nature' recently claimed that Wikipedia is as reliable as the Britannica.
The site itself states: "All information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatever."
If you consider that anyone - literally, anyone - can create an entry and anyone else - literally, anyone else - can edit it, you will realise how insubstantial its information might conceivably be. If the material you are researching is truly vital, you would be well advised to cross-check it elsewhere.
Cheers