John Berry wrote: An encyclopedia can either give a biased answer/opinion/pov/conclusion that > the reader should ignore, or give no answer/opinion/pov/conclusion > presenting all sides letting reader choose. >
I do not believe it is possible for anyone to have an unbiased point of view, or even to know how biased they are. Some people are more biased than others, but the person himself cannot see the mote in his own eye. I think it is silly to demand that an author have a neutral point of view. Instead, we should ask the author to state his or her point of view clearly so we can anticipate where the bias is likely to be. > Perhaps as I suggested earlier Wikipedia is mostly fine as it is but should > have a notice on all articles that cause controversy stating that the reader > should not blindly assume the conclusion in the article is the right one as > this article may be permanently biased and that only in depth research may > assure the reader of his or her own answer.. > That is a *very* good idea. They should have a tag at the top saying that a substantial number of experts disagree with the contents. Of course one or two people are likely to disagree with practically any assertion, so there may be cases when the defenders of the status quo feel that this tag is unwarranted, with justification. - Jed
