On 8/26/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
It's the point of primary and secondary sources to investigate what's *actually* true; to argue for or against various claims and interpretations; and generally to try to take the point of view they see as correct. I want an encyclopedia to provide me a map of those primary and secondary sources, not to constitute one itself.
In that respect, I think Britannica is indeed worse in many cases. If what I wanted was a POV summary of a topic, I'd look for those opinions in a book published by a well-respected author in the field, or in a survey/review article in a peer-reviewed journal.
Exactly right. The articles with a byline are the worst ones in that respect: articles by experts giving only their POV, which we could read in any of the papers or books they've written about the subject, and after reading the entry, we're still left with the question: "But what do other people think about this?" Wikipedia, at its best, answers that question. Britannica, at its best, doesn't often manage to.
Sarah