On 18/08/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
on 8/18/07 8:09 AM, Thomas Dalton at
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com wrote:
Were the grounds really pure bullshit?
In their opinions, and, in some of the cases, mine - yes the grounds were
bullshit. Because, the grounds for disagreement by the disputing editors
were based on popular notions of the subject and self-help nonsense.
If the grounds were bullshit then the articles should be reverted back
to the experts version. If the experts had a valid cite then there's
no excuse. If they didn't then it's much more arguable.
In all cases here we are talking about the subjects of
human behavior and
other very basic psychosocial concepts. I will not be more specific about
the Articles in question so as not to single-out any specific editor. But,
in each case, the objections they had were based upon "that's not what I
learned" and other pop-psych nonsense. How do you deal with that without
running into the 3RR?
I think that domain experts should be paired with wikiexperts; that
way the wikiexperts can hand-hold the domain experts around the
wikirules, and help revert unreasonable edits by others.
I ask this with my tongue partially planted in my
cheek: If a person,
recognized as especially knowledgeable in a field, makes an edit to a
article in that field, then cites their own texts as sources, would this be
acceptable to the Project? Do you see what I¹m getting at? Who would
Einstein have cited?
Lorentz; or other people that have studied Einstein. Push came to
shove he could ask somebody notable to write something about it and
then reference it ;-)
Marc
--
-Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly
imperfect world things could be a lot better.