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 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l