Steve raises an interesting point about expertise. There is currently a journalist helping to edit the LaRouche pages, or trying to, who is an expert on the LaRouche movement. Because of his expertise, he has access to professional research archives about the movement, which needless to say the LaRouche editors are freaking out about, because finally there's someone in Wikipedia with the knowledge to nail them. They are calling this researcher a liar and a cheat; have accused him of cooking quotes; and I stand accused of knowing he has cooked them but pretending not to notice.
My fear is that, if I take this matter to the arbcom, there will be a "plague on both your houses" attitude, so that, if any action is taken against the LaRouche editors (e.g. that they be asked to stop editing those pages) similar action will be taken against the researcher, which I know the LaRouche editors will demand (and probably against me too). I worry that this attitude exists because admins and arbitrators usually don't examine quality of content when making decisions. Yet editorial content is the most important aspect of Wikipedia, if it wants to be a good encyclopedia.
I suppose what I'm arguing for is more respect for expertise, not at the cost of the open-access philosophy, which I support, but I believe that openness and respect for quality can co-exist. The process matters but it's a means to an end, not an end in itself.
Slim
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:57:02 -0800 (PST), Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- "steven l. rubenstein" rubenste@ohiou.edu wrote:
I think we should either expand the brief of the mediation and arbitration committees to enforce content guidelines or, if those committees prefer having a more limited brief, form some other clear process to resolve conflicts over content and enforce content policies.