A order cheap cialis online loading dose is designed to get effective levels of medication asacol sale into your body quickly so it can start working right betnovate online sale away. Amjevita usesThe Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves prescription buy cheap buy internet drugs such as Amjevita to treat certain conditions. It also for uk helps limit damage to your joints, which can prevent or in prices slow down the worsening of your condition. Psoriatic arthritis explainedPsA kenalog no prescription is a form of arthritis that can develop in some buy (metacam) in canada people with the skin condition psoriasis. Over time, the inflammation buy glucophage without prescription can damage the joints and cause your vertebrae (bones in order discount online online your spine) to fuse. Amjevita helps reduce the overactivity in norvasc prescription your immune system that's causing inflammation in your digestive system. Amjevita.

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.