I do not know that Google can put up a Truth Commission easily, but the goal is entirely laudable. Only those that are "very true" ought to land in the top list of searches.
That is one drawback of the free-for-all in the Internet age. So much info but too little accuracy. Better to know little accurate info than be overwhelmed with a load of unverifiable data.
My guess is Google will tie up with the university-affiliated sites. The latter are the only ones most reliable as far as facts are concerned. They may be the arbiters of the truth that asked about.
Even dictionary.com is not dependable, by the way. The only acceptable online dictionary we use in our company is Merriam-Webster.com.
No doubt. I think they're still experimenting with the methodology. i.e. one criteria is to pick up how many sources the article mentioned and how many direct quotes, etc.
but really, i'm sure it will be flawed. the best thing to do is not to rely on any information on the internet as fact.
Comments 7
That is one drawback of the free-for-all in the Internet age. So much info but too little accuracy. Better to know little accurate info than be overwhelmed with a load of unverifiable data.
My guess is Google will tie up with the university-affiliated sites. The latter are the only ones most reliable as far as facts are concerned. They may be the arbiters of the truth that asked about.
Even dictionary.com is not dependable, by the way. The only acceptable online dictionary we use in our company is Merriam-Webster.com.
Reply
No doubt. I think they're still experimenting with the methodology. i.e. one criteria is to pick up how many sources the article mentioned and how many direct quotes, etc.
but really, i'm sure it will be flawed. the best thing to do is not to rely on any information on the internet as fact.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
i did! and my nails and toes too. :P
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment