On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 02:55, Anthere wrote:
I; (Jussi-Ville Heiskanen) wrote:
P.S. I hate to keep on harping on this matter, but
there is a
possibility that a method
for resolving questions of fact may be needed down the line. The ideal
method for
this is neither arbitration nor mediation, but rather "expert
determination". This has
already been excercised informally in the Florentin Smarandache and
Neutrosophy
case, when a professor from outside Wikipedia was "enticed" to "fix"
the
problem.
Once we get more and more public exposure, it may well turn out that on
specific
tightly defined questions of fact, we may be able to get even notable
experts to
accept commissions to sort things out, in a context of both/all sides of
the
conflict accepting beforehand the expert enlisted makes the final call.
There are
attendant possibilities here, for generating publicity for both
Wikipedia and/or the
expert who accepts the commission (and we may even get a new convert from
the highest reaches of the particular field :-).
hummmm, perhaps. Yeah, why not.
But...let's say...if it is a purely factual point, expertise is nice.
But usually, most conflicts are not exactly on purely factual points.
More on some that involves interpretation.
And...being an expert is no guarantee of neutrality
rather far from that in fact :-)
<nod>
Say...if we call for help upon an expert...I would say it is ok if this
expert succeeds to *convince* us of the proper answer to the issue,
provided that he gives us appropriate references.
Ìt is ok that he convinces us.
It is not ok that he just tell us "this is the good answer".
Right. Any such expert would have to respect the fact that Wikipedia is
a
wiki, and any information that she provided would be edited ruthlessly,
as
always. The help she would be able to provide would consist solely of
providing an authoritative view from outside the wikipedia social
context.
I mean...if we call help upon a "great" expert, that we agree on that
expert, that this expert is indeed biaised in his answer, and makes a
final call upon which someone disagree, how are we gonna get out of that
? and tell the guy from whom we requested help that "no, it is not
acceptable".
I presume you mean that one or more of the combatants on the question
would
not accept the resulting answer to our query? I think then that person
would
have a very steep hill to climb to prove to the rest of wikipedians that
they
were not just trying to cause trouble.
In short, I think a respectable number of us know an expert, who is just
as experts as us on a topic, but with whom we disagree. I do not think
it would be fair in the slightest that on wikipedia this expert vision
is considered the right one, just because he was requested as an expert,
if in the real world we fairly disagree.
the idea is seducing, but dangerous :-)
I think your concerns are legitimate, and certainly would have to be
addressed
somehow. I am not quite sure how we should handle such a conflict,
although I
would hope that any expert we called upon would genuinely attempt to
arrive at
a neutral solution acceptable to all.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (aka Cimon Avaro)