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)