[Foundation-l] Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate

Sat Oct 23 21:57:07 UTC 2010

> 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-list at phizz.demon.co.uk at
wiki-list at 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