> There are two points here.True.
> A. One way of assessing an argument, or a work of reference, is to
> check what it says about things one knows about. The only problem I
> am aware of is that sometimes people bring in supporting arguments
> from fields where their knowledge is poor to bolster arguments in
> domains where there knowledge is good.
> B. Cybalist is a treasury of incidental information. I startedTrue.
> indexing it for my own benefit when I realised that I wanted to
> revisit messages for snippets that were incidental to the main
> argument. I therefore think that Piotr's practice of correcting
> errors of fact is a good example for us to follow.