I believe it was in history (or perhaps textual criticism) where the distinction between primary and secondary sources was first made. The idea of NPOV is fundamental to the humanities.
I'm not really a humanist, but I have a little background both in Humanities and STM (if you consider mathematics as STM) and in the interview with Eco I tried to focus on the differences between these two domains and their approach to collaboration.
I'm not saying that Humanities do not struggle for an objectivity/consensus,
but I just wanted to emphasize the difference between STM studies, in which I do think it is easier to understand and comprehend the procedures, ideas and mechanisms of Wikipedia (for many reasons).
From what I've experienced, it is generally more difficult to explain these
things to humanities scholars that stm scholars. And I was wondering if Wikipedia, limiting the article to one, single and neutral version, is enough to some Humanities scholars, who maybe would prefer the possibility of many articles/monographies, one for interpretation.
Aubrey