At 03:16 AM 1/24/04 -0600, Ira Stoll wrote:
That's exactly what I'm getting at. The
wikipedia should be packed with
clickable citations.
In some cases, the useful citations aren't to online material--making them
clickable would
entice people to, say, the chance to buy a book, rather than actually
providing more
information.
The reason why I've always loved encyclopedias so
much is the quality of
the information, and the impartial manner in which it was presented.
Citations (particularly linkable) bring with them evidence for belief, and
an option for the reader to learn further, investigate for themselves (by
clicking on it). A basic of polite discourse (and a policy in my debate
club) was to accept another's argument so long as it is logical, and to
accept their premise so long as you could not disprove it (like thru a
citation). What I Don't like about the wikipedia is when the truth (or a
way of interpreting it) is removed from an article, regardless of the
quality of citation, due to overriding majority POV. My suggestions are
meant to address that. JackLynch
People who ignore the NPOV policy aren't going to stop because there's a
citation.
Conversely, the presence of a citation doesn't stop a statement from
*being* strongly
POV.