Talk:The Canadian Encyclopedia
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Fair use rationale for Image:Canadiaencycl.jpg
Image:Canadiaencycl.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
I removed that claim from the opening line; the CE is anything but authoritative; it's full of errors, omissions, and reads like a comic-book history in spots, oversimplified and dumbed-down and grossly p.c.-ified. I've seen better and more accurate copy in everything from Western Report and MacLean's Magazine to The Onion. When I wrote to them to confront them about some REALLY sloppy errors on a certain group of articles, I got a letter back saying pretty much "well, OUR researcher has a Ph.D - what do you have?" That Ph.D wasn't worth the UBC toilet paper it was printed on, IMO. They've since changed the content in question - but still haven't got it right. And it still reads in worse point-form than an elementary school textbook...... "Authoritative" is something like the Brittannica; the CE just ain't. "We know better" was teh attitude I got, when they didn't know anything at all; that's "pretentious" not "authoritative" Skookum1 (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I have replaced the word "authoritative" in the opening sentence. The above comment seems like a result of a personal opinion and hurt feelings. The Encyclopedia's writers are authorities in their fields (ie: PhD-holders, professors, etc.) and encyclopedia content is therefore "authoritative", regardless of a reader's disagreements. If you find the style to be "comic-book" or "over-simplified", my guess is that this is because the articles are meant to be summaries, not in-depth pieces, that are accessible for all users and age groups, including high school students. This does not make the articles unauthoritative. Pawpslice (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)