Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Sarah,
The thing that always strikes me now when I read
the Encyclopaedia
Britannica is how POV it is, and I often wonder why we're aiming to be
as good as them, when in fact (at our best) we can be so much better.
At our best, we *can* be much better than Britannica. This is for a
variety of reasons, but I don't think NPOV really is one. NPOV is Good,
yes, but it doesn't make us Better. Maybe this is because my POV is
closer to Britannica's than yours is, and I'm thus biased.
Well, I suppose it depends on what you think the purpose of an
encyclopedia is. In my opinion, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to be
a good tertiary source---that is, to document the current state of many
fields, as a way of quickly gaining an overview and pointer to more
detailed information. As such, it should be neutral and dispassionate,
and one that is *is* in fact better than one that takes a point of view.
It's the point of primary and secondary sources to investigate what's
*actually* true; to argue for or against various claims and
interpretations; and generally to try to take the point of view they see
as correct. I want an encyclopedia to provide me a map of those primary
and secondary sources, not to constitute one itself.
In that respect, I think Britannica is indeed worse in many cases. If
what I wanted was a POV summary of a topic, I'd look for those opinions
in a book published by a well-respected author in the field, or in a
survey/review article in a peer-reviewed journal.
-Mark