Evaluating the credibility of web resources

[Jon Knight]

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Clay Johnson wrote:
> I would say that information in Books have far more validity behind them,
> than web pages unconditionally, wouldn't you? I mean, anyone can write a
> web page and post it stating "Monica Lewinsky is a Man," but I don't think
> we can get any books, periodicals, or what not, that can include that
> without some validation, with the exception of the National Enquirer.

And the Sport.  And Viz.  And Zit.  And many of the humour books in my
local bookshop.  And all the books published by one-man-and-his-dog
publishers who will publish anything anyone pays them to.  And books
published by some organisations to support/promote their points of view.
Just because something is on dead trees doesn't instantly make it
unconditionally good.  Hence the expressions "not everything in black and
white makes sense" and "don't believe all you read".

Tatty bye,

Jim'll

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jon "Jim'll" Knight, Researcher, Sysop and General Dogsbody, Dept. Computer
Studies, Loughborough University of Technology, Leics., ENGLAND.  LE11 3TU.
* I've found I now dream in Perl.  More worryingly, I enjoy those dreams. *