On 10/26/07, joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu <joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:
Keep in mind who this is talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Radin
(and now pardon me while I NPOV that article a bit)
The quote itself was from David Hill.
This part of his quote is more troubling:
"The greatest problem with Wikipedia that we now find is that they are
highly selective in who should place information and where therefore they
will never really have a web-based encyclopaedia that is unbiased and
totally factual. It is ultimately at the whims of the few enlightened ones
who control what should be a great reference. Unfortunately we now see that
it is not."
The perception that Wikipedia is controlled by "the few" is painful, and
relatively common. In my experience, individual articles or sometimes
subject areas are indeed sometimes controlled by a "few", but certainly not
the whole thing. The vast majority of my edits never run into any kind of
problem editors. So why does this perception linger so long?
Steve