Lying flovent without prescription on the floor or an exercise mat on the right remeron online side of the body, ensure that the upper body is cream medication straight. For example, gallium aluminum arsenide lasers have short wavelengths order cheap diclofenac online and the beams can penetrate body tissue well. It's also cheap viagra overnight delivery not known for certain whether these sexual side effects were buy generic prednisolone alternative liquid due to Lyrica or another cause. When an organization includes overnight estradiol certain drugs in treatment guidelines, this means that research has viagra prescription shown the drug to be safe and effective. If you're atrovent india concerned about the side effects of Ritalin or Ritalin LA asacol online sales in children, talk with your child's doctor or pharmacist. Once purchase cheap (metacam) low cost consultation a person receives the injection, their body trains the immune order xalatan cheap online system to detect the flu virus as if it were lasix without prescription alive so that it produces antibodies. However, it is important clozapine to remember that, even if someone said "yes" to coercive tablet viagra sex, it is not their fault. Ritalin interactions with herbsRitalin has.

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.