In a message dated 12/1/2008 2:00:51 PM Pacific Standard Time,
delirium(a)hackish.org writes:
This isn't as rare as people might think either; I'd
say the *majority* of academic-press books make at least one significant
claim that is controversial in its field, often without even admitting
that the claim is controversial.>>
-------------------
Which is why Wikipedia needs to attract and retain expert editors who can
at-a-glance spy an unusual but well-sourced claim, and either relegate it to
Talk for further discussion, or counter-balance it with another source stating
the opposite or watering down the conclusion.
Will Johnson
**************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW
AOL.com.
(
http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaol…)