The order cheap viagra absence of warnings or other information for a given drug quinine online does not indicate that the drug or drug combination is lowest price for toradol safe, effective, or appropriate for all patients or all specific order vibramycin no prescription required uses. For relationships to heal, people need to offer sincere cialis cheap price apologies for things they have done wrong or mishandled. These lowest price for zithromax electrodes connect to an electrocardiogram (ECG or EKG) machine, tracking generic retin-a prescription professional the heart's rhythm throughout the test.A healthcare professional inserts an buy cheap advair side effects liquid intravenous line (IV) into a vein in the individual's arm, tizanidine prescription where they will later administer the radioactive tracer.The individual reclines buy advair online on a flat table linked to the PET scanner and cheapest diovan side effects dose a computer. Diet culture, in the form of fitness images cheapest clomid prices intended to be inspirational, thin bodies, and aspirational food images, may.

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.