--- "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. 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/