Ok, Ok, I admit -- I like Wikipedia.
But, Why, Hank? There's no editors, there's no fact-checkers, it carries none of the hard-earned veneer of, say, the sainted Ny Times, or the sainted medical journals, you're always yapping about!
Good point -- but I still like it. I like the rough and tumble of the blogosphere. Also, wikipedia is an excellent source of FACTS. Most folks lack a basic understanding of facts, and simply jump right into meaningless opinions.
Example: Dr. Gallo is a fraud. That is a fact. See, NY Times
In contrast, it is too easy to say, "Bush is an idiot." It's hard to analyze and assess why this true, and what changes in policies, if adopted, could alter this conclusion. I don't know much about politics, so I ain't gonna do this work, either!:)
Sorry, back to wiki.
My pal, Dr. Bialy has alerted me to an outstanding, piece of AIDS wikipedia, that y'all should check out. Ya might learn something. Ya might learn some FACTS.
D'oh! Dean pedantically reminds us that there are several wikis, and that the above one is NOT wikipedia. Here's the Wikipedia entry for Dr. Duesberg.
Other than a snotty little opinion inserted in the second sentence, the facts recited seems pretty darn fair and accurate to me, though, so my misplaced point still stands (by pure luck).
For facts and data, wikipedia is pretty darn good.
Here's Dr. Bialy in wikipedia.
Here's Dr. Bialy in AIDS wiki.
A few tweaks here and there, but same basic structure. Those bastards are trying to confuse us:)