On mySimon: Skullcandy Hesh Headphones
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 3 of 13:
Next »
« Previous
Britannica peer review of Nature vs Wikipedia?
The study presents Nature as above questioning and laws, vs Britannica and Wikipedia as poor fallible uncertain sources.

Life teaches that the reference who fears to be questioned is generally not the safest.

Paris, Fri 16 Dec 2005 15:57:45 +0100
Posted by: Michel Merlin   Posted on: 12/16/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

truth versus perception  hipparchus2001 | 12/15/05
Thanks for the Demonstration of Perception  nucrash | 12/19/05
Britannica peer review of Nature vs Wikipedia?  Michel Merlin | 12/16/05
Nature articles are peer reviewed  tic swayback | 12/16/05
See my reply below  Michel Merlin | 12/16/05
Why should Nature be over comparison?  Michel Merlin | 12/16/05
Nature is not above comparison  tic swayback | 12/16/05
Yet often postures so  Michel Merlin | 12/19/05
Why the avid debate?  StanB | 12/16/05
Congratulations!  nECrO_z | 12/16/05
It's not a matter of shich is better.  Haterock Davidsfather | 12/18/05
Clarity helps accuracy and truth  Michel Merlin | 12/19/05
It's not a matter of which is better.  Haterock Davidsfather | 12/18/05

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement
Click Here
  • Smart Tech Expert advice on innovations in healthcare and the green technologies that make it happen. Find out more
  • Smart Business Discussion and advice on management issues that revolve around making your world smarter and more useful. More Smart Advice
  • Smart People The best and worst moves in the management and strategy trenches. Learn More