At 03:16 AM 1/24/04 -0600, Ira Stoll wrote:
That's exactly what I'm getting at. The wikipedia should be packed with clickable citations.
In some cases, the useful citations aren't to online material--making them clickable would entice people to, say, the chance to buy a book, rather than actually providing more information.
The reason why I've always loved encyclopedias so much is the quality of the information, and the impartial manner in which it was presented. Citations (particularly linkable) bring with them evidence for belief, and an option for the reader to learn further, investigate for themselves (by clicking on it). A basic of polite discourse (and a policy in my debate club) was to accept another's argument so long as it is logical, and to accept their premise so long as you could not disprove it (like thru a citation). What I Don't like about the wikipedia is when the truth (or a way of interpreting it) is removed from an article, regardless of the quality of citation, due to overriding majority POV. My suggestions are meant to address that. JackLynch
People who ignore the NPOV policy aren't going to stop because there's a citation. Conversely, the presence of a citation doesn't stop a statement from *being* strongly POV.