Marc Riddell wrote:
on 8/29/07 9:29 PM, Matthew Brown at morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/29/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
When you say the "sources", aren't you referring to the "professionals"?
He probably is - but the point's valid - quite often the true experts need someone else to filter their material into a good encyclopedia article. The ideal Wikipedian isn't the person who writes the seminal papers, but someone who knows enough about the subject to be able to read them and apply them in context.
I do agree with you, Matt. A professional in a field looking for information in that field would not go to an encyclopedia for that information. However, a layman, wanting to get some basic ideas regarding a subject would. And they are, after all, who our primary readers are. I believe the main text of an encyclopedia should be written by persons with a basic grasp of a subject, who are able to convey those basics in a fluent, articulate manner, and rely on sources (professionals) for specific details. The professionals have their textbooks and journals. The laypersons have the encyclopedias - which are, in a way, translations. It's as though you published a journal article on a subject, and had a button to click on that says "Translate this Page" :-).
Taking it further, a working-class layman whose universe is built on watching TV, and who has a limited education is not likely to be interested in academic articles. He can, however, read articles about his favorite TV programmes, and walk away satisfied from his Wikipedia experience. If when here he clicks on a link and gets unexpected information he has exceeded our expectations. Sure, we want the information to be accurate, but to whom are we appealing with our demand for sources? Our TV proletarian doesn't give a damn; he's spent a lifetime being taught to believe. Sometimes I'm inclined to think that for some sourcing derives from a fear of being wrong or inferior. Any error takes on the proportions of a major loss of face when it is publicized, but when viewed in the context of Wikipedia's size the level of error is not that bad.
Ec