For celebrex lowest uk cost get cheapest more information about the possible side effects of Arexvy, talk buy cheap dexamethasone with your doctor or pharmacist. The drug information contained herein cheapest ventolin is subject to change and is not intended to cover get cheapest methotrexate low price canada all possible uses, directions, precautions, warnings, drug interactions, allergic reactions, diclofenac online stores or adverse effects. However, scientists are using it to treat betnovate pill inherited diseases like hemophilia and sickle cell disease, as well buy cheap ampicillin online as acquired disorders like leukemia. Another key difference between latent buy generic clonidine TB infection and active TB disease is that TB disease buy cheapest kenalog alternative can spread to other people. The eyeglasses must have standard find no rx lipitor frames and come from a Medicare-enrolled supplier, as Medicare will generic accutane not pay for designer frames. People with SCLC should have petcam (metacam) oral suspension for sale open discussions with their doctors about their condition, treatment options, and.

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.