David Gerard wrote:
(A tangential note: I consider NPOV to be our most
important
innovation - much more radical than merely letting anyone edit your
encyclopedia. The concept of "neutrality" has existed in various
guises, but not like Wikipedia does it, with the consequences it has
as a source of information for the world.)
I guess I don't really agree on this--- it's been the trend in reference
works for decades to split tertiary reference material (neutral
summaries of scholarly consensus, published as encyclopedias) from
critical surveys and novel arguments (published in journals or as
non-reference books). The trend was becoming dominant by at least the
1970s I'd say; a good example of the modern encyclopedia in this style
is the [[Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire]] (published 1971-1992)
which explicitly aims for a neutral summary of scholarly consensus on
each of its subjects, which scholars can all use as a reference point.
(Where scholars disagree, it simply notes that fact, sometimes
summarizing each side's argument.)
-Mark