--- "Daniel R. Tobias" <dan(a)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. See my
follow-up post on "Wikipedia's Effect on American
Knowledge" from an independent source.
Somehow, some argue through divine communication, others
claim through telepathy, that the Wikipedia's article on
the "power" of [[prayer]] is as well informed.
~~Pro-Lick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick
http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (Wikia supported site since 2006)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo!
Auto Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/