Better buy accutane from canada options for self-treatment for constipation may include increasing fiber intake, glyburide no prescription getting regular exercise, and eating high fiber foods. Herbal remedies, cheap viagra from canada such as melatonin and valerian root, may help some people, cialis sales but there is no solid evidence to support this. Specifically, discount estrace vaginal cream it isn't known whether the drug passes into human breast buy t-ject 60 milk or how it could affect a breastfed child. If cheap griseofulvin from canada you've had an allergic reaction to Tikosyn or any of online clomid its ingredients, your doctor will likely not prescribe Tikosyn. If buy cheap zyprexa online a person experiences anesthesia awareness during surgery, it is very order cheap cafergot work important that they receive support right away. The management of viagra no rx required the disease focuses on pain control and addressing emotional and purchase glyburide physical stressors that might have played a role in the colchicine prescription condition's development. For example, a person needing a pain reliever where to buy cialis can choose between Tylenol and a generic store-brand version of buy generic tizanidine no prescription usa acetaminophen. Knowing a person has ADHD does not provide any information.

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.