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)