Cheney Shill schreef:
--- "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004665.html
from traditional sources. As a result, those who consult Google or Wikipedia -- with an open-minded and skeptical attitude, of course -- are likely to be better informed than those who rely on sources like the BBC.
That seems a bit of an extreme extrapolation based on a single case involving obvious and well-known psychic BS in telepathy and BBC's partial hiding and down-playing thereof. Not the kind of exhibition of statistical sampling and cause-effect logic that one might hope the better editors of Wikipedia would display.
It is extrapolation, but not that extreme. Language Log (which is a great read, by the way) has published a number of bad BBC science stories over the years; see http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003507.html .
Although it's not a scientific study, LL's comments are based on more than this single incident.
Eugene