[WikiEN-l] NOR contradicts NPOV

[WJhonson at aol.com]

<<In a message dated 1/6/2009 5:33:44 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
cbeckhorn at fastmail.fm writes:

The idea  that we have to wait a few years for secondary sources to sort 
things out  before we write about a piece of news would be very 
surprising to the  people who edit biographical articles about current 
politicians and  articles about the latest release in the Harry Potter 
series. The general  practice on wikipedia is simply that if material is 
verifiable and a  consensus of editors on a page favors it, then it can 
be included. Why  would academic articles be different - why would we 
have to wait for  history to judge a new mathematical theorem, when we 
don't have to wait  for history to judge some political scandal? >>
 
That's not quite the case.
"Verifiable" doesn't cover it all.  That is why we have long side  
discussions on reliability and types of sources.
That is why the talk pages of V and RS are some of the longest in the  
project.
 
New textbooks are being written *every year* on every topic  imaginable.
The idea that a person cannot find a new textbook on say "Differential  
Equations" published in the last *five* years and therefore must refer to  Journal 
articles simply to establish notability, and then to introduce 14 new  
concepts, never published in any secondary text, is simply untenable.  The  greater 
likelihood is that they didn't try :)
 
Will Johnson
 
 
**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)