> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> I sure hope so. It will stop a trend of random, unreliable sources of
> Roy, you are a step away from endorsing of burning libraries everywhere
> because "one illustrated dictionary is all a person needs". Why bother
> keeping all those OTHER sources of information, like the other books right
> next to your favorite one? Variety is good and healthy, and it does not
> hurt to use your common sense reading Wiki, too: its articles are not
> completely free of personal opinions, errors and omissions. Be careful
> with what you wish for.
Subjectivity is everywhere. I did not suggest burning libraries, which is
the equivalent of omitting all results not from Wikipedia or searching
Wikipedia directly rather than large search engines, for example. Anywhere
you turn there is a subjective side. Even when you consult the MW
dictionary you are susceptible and bound to absorb the views of the author.
Maths and sciences often have axioms, but anywhere else (science included)
you see many uncertainties and subjective, diverse views.
When I want to engage in some reading on a topic that has many sides to it
(e.g. diet), putting it in my frequently-used search box is not the best
idea. Commercial companies will dominate the SERP's and will sometimes
disguise their motives under so-called news. That's when I choose to look
at what is possibility (taking /likelihood/ into consideration) a more
Roy S. Schestowitz