That was slimvirgin's claim, not mine. I have no interest in an argument over whether Britinnica is better, more NPOV, etc. I asked slimvirgin to provide a positive outside example that exhibits NPOV. Such as, "Zombietimes.com consistently represent the best cases of NPOV", as opposed to, "On a sunny day with a blue sky, no clouds, and no bugs, Fox News can provide a fair forecast for the next hour". I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I take it it's not representative of the "average" diligence that Wikipedia puts into content review.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.net/index.php?title=User:Pro-Lick
David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote: On 25/08/06, Cheney Shill wrote:
The thing that always strikes me now when I read the Encyclopaedia Britannica is how POV it is, and I often wonder why we're aiming to be as good as them, when in fact (at our best) we can be so much better.
They have *consistent* quality. At our best we're fantastic, at our average we're probably better than nothing ...
- d.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.