To cheapest glyburide find out how the costs of these brand-name drugs compare gel drug with the cost of meloxicam, talk with your doctor, pharmacist, atarax in us or insurance provider. A shingles rash generally begins as small, sale discount quinine closely grouped bumps forming in continuous or interrupted bands on real azor without prescription one side of the body. How long a medication remains diclofenac prescription good to use can depend on many factors, including how order cheap viagra sale dosage and where you store the medication. Treatment options for eating find cheap ampicillin online disorders and disordered eating are generally the same, depending on cafergot sale the severity of a person's condition. They also positively affected generic clindamycin sale dangers care partner coping self-efficacy, perceived support, preparation, and task effectiveness. buy cheapest clomid The welts may appear with distinct borders, but they can buy xalatan sale also cluster together, forming larger raised bumps. A dietician can cheap lasix provide guidance on whether a person needs to take further order ampicillin in us measures based on blood test results. Observational studies show that tizanidine without prescription regular consumption of nuts is linked to a reduced risk of.

For years, people have been observing that the wonderful surfeit of information sources available through the Web can result, paradoxically, in a narrowing of our perspectives. In the political realm, for example, liberals can now get all their news from liberal sites, and conservatives from conservative sites. As Cass Sunstein observes in Infotopia, speaking and listening only to people who think like us has a polarizing force — everyone just gets more extreme.

The Boston Globe has a good review today of a paper published in Science some months ago reporting that groupthink is affecting even scientific research publications — the lists of cited papers are becoming more homogeneous, not more varied, as the information sources diversify. There is even an analogy with popular music — yes, there is a “long tail” of music now available for special tastes, but the small number of big winners dominate music sales now more than ever. And so it is with scientific papers — with most available online, a smaller number are cited more often than in the past.

The paper suggests that Web search is fundamentally different from search through paper records, which puts more context around sources and causes us to be more critical before pursuing a reference. Clicking on links thoughtlessly is just too easy, and we are losing something in the process.

Hardly an open-and-shut case — the article mentions several dissents — but it makes sense to me.

This entry was posted on Sunday, November 23rd, 2008 at 3:57 pm and is filed under Miscellaneous, 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.