The answer and key to that revolves around an unremitting application
of the No Original Reserach and Cite Sources policies. So long as an
item is empirically-grounded (for my own purposes as an editor, at
least, in the critical scholarship), there's good likelihood for a
reliable, verifiable NPOV content/exposition.
It's easy to give editorial advice through innuendo; yes, everyone's
for clear, critical thinking, including and not limited to people who
are far from clear or critical thinkers.
With all their money-bought and tradition of expertise, Britanica
simply cannot produce as much quality content as Wikipedia: they don't
have the (intellectual) labour power for it. The more the
abovementioned content policies are adhered to, the more Wikipedia's
credibility, as an authoritative source (compared to its Print
counterparts) will continue to rise.
I want to make another point, about Wikipedia as an 'immediately
reliable' and 'scholarly' resource, a point that I think the Print
Encyclopedia critiques are consistently neglecting and, perhaps, even
misrepresenting (this might even strike a few editors here as
peculiar, but I do think it makes a lot of sense). Example:
Let say, upon reading the article [[Snuh?]], which I find articulates
this or that well and is well-referenced, I wish to cite a passage
from it on a Peer Review publication; but let's also consider that
[[Snuh?]] is a contencious topic which, for much of the time,
undergoes POV wars/vandalism which, at times, dramatically alter its
'reliable' from, including perhaps the specific passage I intend to
cite.
I am, however, not under any obligation to merely have [[Snuh?]] per
se. in a footnote, rather, I can easily use [[Snuh? -- that specific
revision]]. That, then, easily solves the problem of 'immediate
reliability and stability.'
But, again, and to sum up, the key is to have that reliable,
verifiable element in a given article from the outset; not only that,
but as the predominant component (the aim for noting a specific
revision history in that way, after all, should be limited to serving
as a contingency measure, in case of drastic distortions due to POV
wars/vandalism at any given time). Thus, to ensure that that basis
exists, we arrive back full-circle to that dimension of NPOV: the
I'd-rather-not-just-take-your-word-for-it NOR and CS policies.
El_C
>It seemed to me from reading the article that McHenry's answers to his
>own concerns were inherent in Wikipedia's structure:
>"There is no guarantee that truth will win out; there is only our
>hard-won and too-seldom-employed knowledge of what gives us the best
>chance: the free exchange and clash of ideas." (Is Wikipedia not an
>obvious example of this?)
>In his final recommendations, he advocates "clear thinking", a "genial
>skepticism" to both one's own and others' opinions and "toleration"
>(tolerance, surely?). Theoretically, this is covered in NPOV, [[assume
>good faith]], and [[no personal attacks]] but as we all know these are
>violated daily. My question is: how do you (I,we) work this in
>practice from a personal perspective rather than looking at others?
>Cormac
>[[User:Cormaggio]] (en,m)
