Guy Chapman wrote
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 14:42:05 -0600, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
The NOR policy section Sarah quoted tells those people that their talents are not valued here.
The problem here is that we cannot tell the difference between an expert and an "expert", and we don't necessarily know if the editor is pushing a personal agenda.
You don't. But starting off with an overly suspicious attitude is fairly useless, also. In the perspective that Wikipedia articles aim to get readers up to speed quickly in an unfamiliar area, rather than be definitive or authoritative, a certain amount should be taken on (provisional) trust.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Guy Chapman wrote
The problem here is that we cannot tell the difference between an
expert and an "expert", and we don't necessarily know if the editor is pushing a personal agenda.
You don't. But starting off with an overly suspicious attitude is fairly useless, also. In the perspective that Wikipedia articles aim to get readers up to speed quickly in an unfamiliar area, rather than be definitive or authoritative, a certain amount should be taken on (provisional) trust.
Very much so. There's also a need to distinguish between experts and expertise. Too often sceptics deal with alternative views of science with the weasely phrase "scientists say ..." instead of directing their attention to the science.
Ec