In a message dated 12/1/2008 2:00:51 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This isn't as rare as people might think either; I'd say the *majority* of academic-press books make at least one significant claim that is controversial in its field, often without even admitting that the claim is controversial.>> ------------------- Which is why Wikipedia needs to attract and retain expert editors who can at-a-glance spy an unusual but well-sourced claim, and either relegate it to Talk for further discussion, or counter-balance it with another source stating the opposite or watering down the conclusion. Will Johnson **************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW AOL.com. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
