"Larry Pieniazek" wrote
Well I'm not sure how to respond to that exactly,
other than to say that we
judged the entries that turned up based on the criteria we developed (which
were in turn based on the goals, to demonstrate referencability...) Those
entries were the best at it.
Not that it's relevant (so why did I mention it? Dunno) but of the three
judges that actively judged entries, I was the only boy.
If one actually worries about systemic bias as pervasive, one also presumably reinforces
the dictum that Voting is Evil. Because it generally adds to the middle-of-the-road of
whatever is there, rather than addresses what is missing.
If you take copious referencing as a criterion, you will favour areas where reference
books already proliferate. Now, I have nothing against military history, I hasten to add.
I have worked myself on clean-up of Japanese military history (the bizarre Peruvian
contributions). Good references there would be excellent. The reason I bothered is that
coverage of certain things (e.g. the Second Sino-Japanese War) is just inherently going to
be worse than that of each battle for a Pacific island, given the slant of what reference
material exists in English.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from
www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit
www.ntlworld.com/security for more information