[ColanR]

> Textbooks don't have a black-box warning on the front page saying "The accuracy of this book cannot be guaranteed. Please verify any facts stated before storing them in your long-term memory or using them for any purpose"?

I just checked a 2004 medical textbok I had nearby (don't ask). YES, they do have such disclaimers, and they're worded even better than you put it.

[dragonwriter]

> I just checked a medical textbok I had nearby (don't ask). YES, they do have such disclaimers

Most textbooks do not. Medical textbooks (and websites, etc.) often do because of special circumstances (legal and practical) applying to that field.

[ColanR]

A few levels up, medical facts were the example used for needing disclaimers. The point is that Google isn't putting up disclaimers even where they should.

> ...97 correct facts about, say, gardening, and three incorrect facts about first aid is not a successful system...

[dragonwriter]

General information sources that include but aren't specifically focussed on medical information don't usually have disclaimers on the medical information (e.g., encyclopedias don't have disclaimers on entries that happen to concern medical information, while medical textbooks do).

[astrodust]

Science and medical textbooks should have a "best before" date on them.

[ColanR]

That would be the copyright date of the book, combined with medical licensing requirements that doctors stay up-to-date in their field.

[astrodust]

Just imagine if software engineers had the same certification requirements as, say, pilots. Or, hell, plumbers.

[ColanR]

I want to say that would be fantastic, except that the software engineers might be pretty miserable.

Also, aren't there such certs already?