> On 23/10/2010 22:00, Wjhonson wrote: >> >> But it does have authoritative perspective. That is exactly my point >> and the point at which you railed at, from a position that was >> extreme. Your contention is that we should not report *any* thing in >> our work on a drug except what the manufacturer puts on the label. > on 10/23/10 5:42 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk at wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: > > If at any moment it can be stood on its head then the information > contained in the articles can never be authoritative. Suppose I have a > calculator that every once in a while, and quite randomly, adds up two > numbers wrongly, such a calculator wouldn't be authoritative in its > results, even when it added the numbers correctly. > > For some things, like who played who in 'West Wing', it is of little > importance. For medical issues the accuracy is highly important, and if > one can't guarantee that each page load contains the accurate > information then one shouldn't be pretending that it is in any way > authoritative. > Very well put. I agree with you completely.
Marc Riddell, Ph.D. Clinical Psychology/Psychotherapy _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
