Difference between revisions of "Masticationpedia:Differences from other collaborative projects"

Masticationpedia:Differences from other collaborative projects (view source)

Revision as of 10:37, 4 January 2021

10 bytes added , 3 years ago

m

Text replacement - "wpen" to "wikipedia"

Rrdubbudu

editor, translator

0

edits

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 == Content neutrality ==
-While one of the most precious values brought by Wikipedia to knowledge is the neutral reporting of information<ref>[[:wpen:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]</ref>, in which the data are shown without endorsing or rejecting them, attributing (and therefore redirecting) the relative assessments to the sources, in Masticationpedia it would be extremely difficult to affirm that there are possibilities to remain neutral in presenting content that is born in the heart of scientific research: Masticationpedia has for its own purpose the production of new content, not [yet] historicized in generalist visions, and could rather, by its very nature, favour the proposition of innovations which, as such, do not have to be neutral (nor could be), but orthodox according to the scientific method<ref>[[:wpen:Scientific method|Scientific method]]</ref>, which is a completely different matter.
+While one of the most precious values brought by Wikipedia to knowledge is the neutral reporting of information<ref>[[:wikipedia:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]</ref>, in which the data are shown without endorsing or rejecting them, attributing (and therefore redirecting) the relative assessments to the sources, in Masticationpedia it would be extremely difficult to affirm that there are possibilities to remain neutral in presenting content that is born in the heart of scientific research: Masticationpedia has for its own purpose the production of new content, not [yet] historicized in generalist visions, and could rather, by its very nature, favour the proposition of innovations which, as such, do not have to be neutral (nor could be), but orthodox according to the scientific method<ref>[[:wikipedia:Scientific method|Scientific method]]</ref>, which is a completely different matter.
 The contents of Masticationpedia therefore contain appraisals and valuations, and apparently comments and opinions too, and it is perfectly normal (here) that it is so. We are not reporting the general outcome of our Discipline, we are interacting with it, on it. For it, of course.