On 25 Aug 2006, at 23:51, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 8/25/06, Cheney Shill
<halliburton_shill(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
To me, the most important aspect of NPOV has
nothing to do with
being "fair". It has to do with removing your own personal
opinion and accepting that of the experts on the topic, thus
satisfying verifiability, even if it goes against what you prefer
or previously believed.
Given that Britannica is both an easy target here and not NPOV
according to your original research, do you have a paradigm for
NPOV other than yourself and Wiki?
s/experts/previously notable/
Calling someone an expert requires a difficult value judgement. We
don't find experts we find notable sources.. who are usually notable
because they are experts or because they are very much not experts. ;)
Of course, any system can make it hard to introduce revolutionary ideas.
All the experts will share the same view, and have made their living
and reputation supporting this view. They are unlikely to admit their
life's work was based on fallacy, perpetuating the misconceptions.
Admittedly most revolutionary ideas are cranky, but most valuable
innovations are revolutionary. It's a balance between ability to fix
things and inertia.