<html style="direction: ltr;">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<style type="text/css">body p { margin-bottom: 1cm; margin-top: 0pt; } </style>
<style type="text/css">body p { margin-bottom: 1cm; margin-top: 0pt; } </style>
</head>
<body style="direction: ltr;"
bidimailui-detected-decoding-type="UTF-8" text="#000000"
bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
This is nice example on how sourcing can be misleading. When people
see a source flag next to a sentence, they automatically consider
the sentence as truth. Rarely do they bother to actually look in the
source and check its nature and what it says.<br>
It is also a good example of the fuzzy border between facts and
interpretation. While the Hebrew name "Ariel" can be literally
translated as "lion of God", this fact doesn't add much information
about the person called Ariel Sharon. It would be rather like
discussing the symbolism in the name Charles de Gaulle
("Charles/Karl the Gaulish") - nice trivia, but nothing more than
that.<br>
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this case demonstrates how
Wikipedia turns into an authoritative source in its own right. I'm
not sure this is where Wikipedia meant to end up.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://blog.camera.org/archives/2014/01/post_123.html">http://blog.camera.org/archives/2014/01/post_123.html</a><br>
</body>
</html>