Steve Bennett wrote:
An excellent argument for why AfD should never be
democracy-based (or
believed to be that way). In these situations, you almost need someone
to step up, say, "Look, I actually know something about entomology. I
believe this insect is notable", wipe all the existing votes, and say
"now, does anyone actually disagree?"
It also seems to me that "ignorance-based debates" are not in
themselves harmful, provided that there are mechanisms such that they
don't drown out the informed. Everyone's worst nightmare is the 10
pokemon fans drowning out the tenured professor in his own field. But
does it actually happen?
It has already happened, on webcomics - a dedicated few editors worked
hard to alienate and drive off actual experts (while an actual
academic expert who's a Wikipedian tried to stop it happening), and
tried to force through that an expert could be outvoted by the proudly
ignorant.
I think they were advocates rather than experts, weren't they?
Webcomics haven't really been around long enough to have established
academic roots. I think I'd bow to Scott McCloud if he deemed something
notable, but webcomics is such a new medium that it's impossible to
determine scholarly worth: there are few academic papers on the subject.
It's a different field to etymology; we're not comparing like for
like. Wikipedia isn't the place to be asserting the notability of
things, it's where we record the notability granted by other sources.
That was an aspect of the forking too. I also think it's rather mean of
you to discuss people as ignorant.
Steve block
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 24/02/06