In a message dated 3/6/2007 8:25:31 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, cunctator@gmail.com writes:
Frankly, I think one of the benefits of Wikipedia is that it forces people to become disabused of Arguments by Authority, to force people to engage in critical thinking, etc.
Why? Because it doesn't rely on the lazy trappings of credentials and curricula vitae and titles and celebrity endorsement, etc.
Any credentialling system can be gamed. So why encourage people to have a false sense of security about something that isn't really needed for the goals of the project?
I disagree. People do not use critical thinking in their ignoring authority, and it's not just credentials, it's making a joke out of something serious with pseudonyms or using systemic ad hominems such as WP:DICK, not to mention the unfair application of standards.
Vincent <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
On 3/7/07, Bartning@aol.com Bartning@aol.com wrote:
I disagree. People do not use critical thinking in their ignoring authority, and it's not just credentials, it's making a joke out of something serious with pseudonyms or using systemic ad hominems such as WP:DICK, not to mention the unfair application of standards.
You are right in that WP:DICK is dickish to reference. But that has little to do with credentialism and much to do with sophomoric immaturity.
As far as the trappings of credentialism, Wikipedia has a fine line to dance in wanting to appeal to experts, while staying true to its core ethos of openness. Some argue that Wikipedia's growth demands a shift from anti-credentalism toward credentialism to 'take it to the next level'. But its important to remember this view as only one in much larger body of views amongst contributors - many of whom don't participate in meta-discussion like this. Keep in mind that most edits are done anonymously and by people who aren't even logged in.
It must be nice to dream of some exclusive process as being the panacea for all of WP's perceived ills. In reality WP has done well thus far without them. Again, see [[Nupedia]] before making additional credentialist proposals. ( I think it wound up costing something like 10,000 USD per article. )
-Stevertigo