[forapurpose]

A great example of the problem of even reading Amazon reviews: I was looking for a translation of the Analects by Confucius (more correctly, Lunyu by Kongzi).

A well-respected translation was criticized by at least one Amazon reviewer for its commentary, which veered off-topic, included the editor's own ideas, etc. I ruled out that translation.

Then I read a scholarly review of the translations (found via Google Scholar) and learned that such commentary is the proper way and that it's been done that way for centuries or more. The editor is meant to interact with the Kongzi's text.

If I didn't read the scholarly review, I would have believed the Amazon reviewer. It was a lesson to me - one I finally accepted: No matter how smart you think you are, unless you have expertise in a field then you lack the ability to discern the truth from ignorance. Persuasiveness is not a measure of truth. You're a sucker, a mark, if you think otherwise.

I no longer read Amazon reviews for such purposes and don't trust Wikipedia either. Also, note that reading the Amazon review actually hurt me; bad information is worse than no information.

[shubb]

I dunno. Sounds like the Amazon review was factually correct. The difference was whether what it identified was good or bad.

The answer to that surely depends on what you need.

My friend is a car expert. I might read a positive review of a car which said that its small engine made it easy to control. He would say that a small engine meant it had poor top speed and acceleration and therefore sucked.

Surely all I learned from this is that the car has a small engine. Someone who drives a lot of cars may want a fun one. Someone who reads a lot of translations of the analects may want a dialogue that contributes to the field. After all, if such a scholar wanted a litteral translation they would read it in the original language.