Musculoskeletal low price zoloft injuries are common and often relate to the type of cheap generic kenalog activity, intensity, preexisting conditions, and physical anomalies. Repeated CT scans estrace vaginal cream for order could lead to radiation overexposure, which increases the risk of viagra purchase cell damage and cancer. The National Institute of Diabetes and cheap betnovate from canada Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) advises people to avoid eating buy cheap zoloft online canada foods with little to no fiber to help prevent constipation. buy discount viagra However, this article should not be used as a substitute cialis overnight shipping for the knowledge and expertise of a licensed healthcare professional. order free augmentin alternative withdrawal Over time, Parkinson's disease medication may cause dyskinesia, which involves buy free arcoxia best price jelly involuntary and uncontrolled movements. Doctors do not recommend some high kenalog for sale blood pressure medications for use with ED, but primary erectile buy generic tizanidine no prescription usa dysfunction medications are often safe. The treatment for high cholesterol buying cialis cost often involves a combination of medications and lifestyle changes. Tertiary wound.

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.