On 25 Aug 2006, at 23:51, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 8/25/06, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
To me, the most important aspect of NPOV has nothing to do with being "fair". It has to do with removing your own personal opinion and accepting that of the experts on the topic, thus satisfying verifiability, even if it goes against what you prefer or previously believed.
Given that Britannica is both an easy target here and not NPOV according to your original research, do you have a paradigm for NPOV other than yourself and Wiki?
s/experts/previously notable/
Calling someone an expert requires a difficult value judgement. We don't find experts we find notable sources.. who are usually notable because they are experts or because they are very much not experts. ;)
Of course, any system can make it hard to introduce revolutionary ideas.
All the experts will share the same view, and have made their living and reputation supporting this view. They are unlikely to admit their life's work was based on fallacy, perpetuating the misconceptions.
Admittedly most revolutionary ideas are cranky, but most valuable innovations are revolutionary. It's a balance between ability to fix things and inertia.