Is google sabotaging browsers?
in [General Linux]
|
From: Curt on 2 Apr 2010 12:29 On 2010-03-07, TJ <TJ(a)noneofyour.business> wrote: > > With Wikipedia, you just don't know. It's a good place to start some > research, but anything, and I do mean ANYTHING you see there needs to be > confirmed from independent sources before you accept it as true. It's a relative rather than an absolute thing, no capacious source of information being infallible or error free.
From: John Hasler on 2 Apr 2010 12:54 TJ wrote: > With Wikipedia, you just don't know. It's a good place to start some > research, but anything, and I do mean ANYTHING you see there needs to be > confirmed from independent sources before you accept it as true. Curt writes: > It's a relative rather than an absolute thing, no capacious source of > information being infallible or error free. Which is why, if it is important, you follow the links to the primary sources. In fact, Wikipedia is more reliable than Britannica (which, as far as I can tell, links only to itself). -- John Hasler jhasler(a)newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
From: TJ on 2 Apr 2010 21:17
On 04/02/2010 12:54 PM, John Hasler wrote: > TJ wrote: >> With Wikipedia, you just don't know. It's a good place to start some >> research, but anything, and I do mean ANYTHING you see there needs to be >> confirmed from independent sources before you accept it as true. > > Curt writes: >> It's a relative rather than an absolute thing, no capacious source of >> information being infallible or error free. > > Which is why, if it is important, you follow the links to the primary > sources. > > In fact, Wikipedia is more reliable than Britannica (which, as far as I > can tell, links only to itself). Yes, it's becoming more and more obvious that you really can't trust anybody - but you and me, of course. And I'm beginning to have my doubts about you... ;^) TJ -- There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. |