Jim Cecropia wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Michael Snow" <wikipedia(a)earthlink.net>
>To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
>Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:50:31 -0800
>
>
>>JAY JG wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>From: "Charles Matthews" <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>
>>>>
>>>>Jimbo wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I do not endorse the view, a view held as far as I know only by a very
>>>>>tiny minority, that Wikipedia is anti-elitist or anti-expert in any
>>>>>way. If anything, we are *extremely* elitist but anti-credentialist.
>>>>>That is, we seek thoughtful intelligent people willing to do the very
>>>>>hard work of getting it right, and we don't accept anything less than
>>>>>that. PhDs are valuable evidence of that, and attracting and
>>>>>retraining academic specialists is a valid goal.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I think Jimbo perhaps meant 'retaining', though in my case 'retraining'
>>>>rings a bell, also.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>"Restraining" might also apply. :-O
>>>
>>>
>>Though if they've been properly retrained, meaning they abide by
>>the spirit of Wikipedia's policies, no further restraint should be
>>necessary.
>>
>>
>An amusing comment (though I see no smiley)
>
I don't generally use emoticons. For something like this, I figure if
people don't see the humor without extra cues, they're welcome to take
the statement seriously, because I meant it both ways.
> but I think it goes to the core of the problem. The strength of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, and supposedly the forces of right will outlast the forces of wrong (as it were).
>
>
And the weakness is that those on the side of right sometimes lose heart
when caught in one of those places where wrong is momentarily surging.
Having the long view makes it easier to keep going, and gets you less
worked up.
--Michael Snow