One of the problems I saw when I first used WA is that it doesn't tell you where the numbers come from. There are no bounds on error, no way to tell how recent they are, no way to see how they were derived. With Google, at least you can usually find a person to ask -- a webmaster, if nothing else. With Wikipedia, you can sometimes get a citation so that you can decide for yourself how reliable the source is -- or, failing that, at least you can see the edit history. But no such luck for WA.
Since the WA results appear to be clickable but don't go anywhere, I assumed that some feature would be later added to show you from whence the results were derived. But from reading this article, it sounds like they want you to believe that WA is the source of the knowledge itself. (Of course, playing loose with references and methodology for the greater glory of Wolfram is something of an inherited trait... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science#Methodolo...)
Since the WA results appear to be clickable but don't go anywhere, I assumed that some feature would be later added to show you from whence the results were derived. But from reading this article, it sounds like they want you to believe that WA is the source of the knowledge itself. (Of course, playing loose with references and methodology for the greater glory of Wolfram is something of an inherited trait... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science#Methodolo...)