On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 23:52, Andrea Zanni wrote:
> From what I've experienced, it is generally more difficult to explain these
> things to humanities scholars
> that stm scholars.
As someone with background in humanities, I can say that it is often
hard to explain science to humanities scholars
On 08/29/2010 11:52 PM, Andrea Zanni wrote:
> And I was wondering if Wikipedia, limiting the article to one, single and
> neutral version,
> is enough to some Humanities scholars, who maybe would prefer the
> possibility of
> many articles/monographies, one for interpretation.
There are no policie
> I believe it was in history (or perhaps textual criticism) where the
> distinction between primary and secondary sources was first made. The idea
> of NPOV is fundamental to the humanities.
I'm not really a humanist, but I have a little background both in
Humanities and STM (if you consider m
From: "Andrea Zanni"
> NPOV is probably not so fascinating or useful for humanisties, or at least
> their inside culture/procedures/habits
I believe it was in history (or perhaps textual criticism) where the
distinction between primary and secondary sources was first made. The idea
of NPOV is
From: "Andrea Zanni"
> It seems that Humanities are overall a problematic area for Wikipedia,
> because less involved in consensus building, and much focused in the
> stratification of different interpretations.
No quite untrue. My background is analytic philosophy and I have worked on
many
