Hi, interesting, yes. Wikipedia was lucky that the research was done by academic Wikipedia
outsiders , and Americans, who only researched a very limited topic about US - Democratic
I have been noticing for long in religious topics that there are heaps of partisan
articles just telling legends in a factual language. Just look at topics concerning
Ismailis (Pir_Sadardin), Hindu saints (Sakkiya_Nayanar ), (Bhagat_Puran_Singh), Islamic
mystics or a number of catholic saints.
I assume that the same mechanism works also on other topics: wherever there is a tradition
of thought, not well known to outsiders or of little interest outside a community, there
is less probability of critical reflection ad edits from outside.
Which I would not expect to happen in Britannica to that extent.
On 2 February 2015 at 12:49, Grant McNulty <grant(a)mcnulty.co.za> wrote:
I came across this article that I thought would be of interest to you: