Jim Cecropia wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Snow" wikipedia@earthlink.net To: wikien-l@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@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