Doctors cheap in us can use stem cell transplants or bone marrow transplants to buy cheapest buy on line give people with AML higher doses of chemotherapy. Symptoms tend levitra overnight shipping to be nonspecific and can include fatigue, frequent infections, fever, buy cheap norvasc headaches, and shortness of breath. Because AML in spinal fluid purchase generic buy alternatives problems is a serious complication, adult survival rates are lower than buy cheap clonidine online AML without CNS involvement or other blood cancers. By seeking zyprexa for order expert guidance, people can make informed decisions about their treatment generic compazine withdrawal options and enhance their overall outlook. Because AML progresses quickly, buy cheap nexium online doctors advise that a person begins chemotherapy as soon as buy glyburide pills possible after diagnosis. Doctors may treat certain cancers in pregnant purchase sale overnight delivery people with radiation, but typically avoid its use at all diovan stages of pregnancy. AML in pregnant people is rare, and buy cheap kenalog online more research is needed to determine the survival and delivery accutane online rates of healthy newborns. Certain types of chemotherapy drugs are more.

Wikipedia articles now turn up at the top of many Internet searches. They have assumed an astonishing degree of authority in only a few years. And deservedly: They are, in general, remarkably accurate. In an article appearing in Technology Review, Simson Garfinkel argues that the standards and protocols Wikipedia uses are redefining the very notion of truth. As Garfinkel explains,

On Wikipedia, objective truth isn’t all that important, actually. What makes a fact or statement fit for inclusion is that it appeared in some other publication–ideally, one that is in English and is available free online. “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth,” states Wikipedia’s official policy on the subject.

“Verifiability” means that the information appeared in some other publication. Other principles are “Neutral Point of View” — editing an entry about yourself is a no-no, for example — and “no original research.”

These principles work beautifully given the fact that anyone can edit entries. Vandalism and errors generally get corrected extremely quickly.

But the three principles don’t work perfectly, and Garfinkel gives a couple of thought-provoking examples where they fail dramatically, because information has gained currency through repetition and only the principals are in a position to explain why it is false.

A fascinating piece, and, like everything Garfinkel writes, very well-argued.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 22nd, 2008 at 7:24 am and is filed under Miscellaneous, Social computing, The explosion, The Internet and the Web. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.