At no point did I dismiss something just because it was on the web, just that, like anything else, it should be viewed critically... dammit, we agree!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGB
I wasn't picking at your comments, I was disagreeing with your sentiment, with the effect of what you argued, not what you used as a disclaimer.
On being critical to sources, I have made a living from that for years, (although most my income nowadays come from audio production) and I tap into other people's lack of ability to be critical when doing PR work or damage control, so I think I have that part pretty well down. But thank you for your concern about my ability to be critical. As I implied, it's really not critical thinking to dismiss something, simply because it's on the web, the tv, the radio or whatever, and yes, wikipedia is generally trustworthy, but each article on there should still be subject to source critique - especially the ones where a company's products are mentioned. They sometime are verbatim copies of press releases.
As always, you have to ask the question "Who would gain?". In this instance, it's quite difficult imagining anyone gaining from saying there exists no such things, unless we invoke some sort of conspiracy to the whole thing.
|