The buy generic lumigan lack of coordination of these body parts affects articulation, speaking cheap viagra samples rate, and the natural flow of speech. However, the criteria order generic viagra for considering someone cured can vary depending on the case purchase lumigan online and the cancer stage. While there is no cure for purchase tetracycline online the underlying processes that cause dementia, several interventions may help. mirapex for sale Because of this, there has been a major effort to buy acomplia detect and control them with infection prevention and control programs. generic aldactone no prescription jelly Microbes can change some of their characteristics to become resistant estradiol pills to common antimicrobial agents. It involves undergoing general anesthesia, after discount cialis without prescription which a doctor passes small electric currents through the brain buy zoloft without prescription to trigger a short seizure. Keep in mind that Zepound purchase vibramycin online is prescribed for weight loss, and weight loss is typically robaxin free sample not recommended during pregnancy. You may also need to obtain cheap colchicine prior authorization before your plan will cover the cost of this.

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.