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
is enough to some Humanities scholars, who maybe would prefer the
many articles/monographies, one for interpretation.