on 8/29/07 9:29 PM, Matthew Brown at morven(a)gmail.com
wrote:
On 8/29/07, Marc Riddell
<michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
When you say the "sources", aren't
you referring to the "professionals"?
He probably is - but the point's valid - quite often the true experts
need someone else to filter their material into a good encyclopedia
article. The ideal Wikipedian isn't the person who writes the seminal
papers, but someone who knows enough about the subject to be able to
read them and apply them in context.
I do agree with you, Matt. A professional in a field looking for information
in that field would not go to an encyclopedia for that information. However,
a layman, wanting to get some basic ideas regarding a subject would. And
they are, after all, who our primary readers are. I believe the main text of
an encyclopedia should be written by persons with a basic grasp of a
subject, who are able to convey those basics in a fluent, articulate manner,
and rely on sources (professionals) for specific details. The professionals
have their textbooks and journals. The laypersons have the encyclopedias -
which are, in a way, translations. It's as though you published a journal
article on a subject, and had a button to click on that says "Translate this
Page" :-).
Taking it further, a working-class layman whose universe is built
on
watching TV, and who has a limited education is not likely to be
interested in academic articles. He can, however, read articles about
his favorite TV programmes, and walk away satisfied from his Wikipedia
experience. If when here he clicks on a link and gets unexpected
information he has exceeded our expectations. Sure, we want the
information to be accurate, but to whom are we appealing with our demand
for sources? Our TV proletarian doesn't give a damn; he's spent a
lifetime being taught to believe. Sometimes I'm inclined to think that
for some sourcing derives from a fear of being wrong or inferior. Any
error takes on the proportions of a major loss of face when it is
publicized, but when viewed in the context of Wikipedia's size the level
of error is not that bad.
Ec