Well, as Gomer Pyle would say:
* "Surprise, surprise, surprise"
Isn't this *precisely* what Larry Sanger was calling for? And wasn't this the *chief* criticism he made about Wikipedia in his famous screed?
That we need *some* sort of reliable group of experts ("vetted panels of respected users who have demonstrated knowledge in certain areas" as Mav put it) to give us a reliable clue as to what is really so.
Okay, maybe I shouldn't be so shrill and I-told-you-so-ish about this; sorry, I'll get off my high horse now.
Taking the course Mav suggests could either help us a lot or hurt us terribly. If we choose wise (and unbiased!) panels, we'll be able to add the adjective "reliable" (or "authoritative") to our main page's slogan. If we simly hold an election, chances are that voters will (deliberately or not) choose a panel which MERELY REFLECTS THEIR PREJUDICES AND BIASES.
It ultimately will come down to a question of:
* Who is worthy of our trust? * How do we identify and attract such people? * How can we prove to others that they merit our trust?
This task might be too hard for us, with our current organization. Now don't get me wrong: I really like the people on the arbcom, and I'm not wangling for a seat on it. I'm just saying that it's very difficult for non-experts to judge the qualifications of experts.
To distinguish between:
A. the scrupulously honest and self-sacrificial devotees of truth (of "what is") who are as M. Scott Peck wrote, "dedicated to reality at all costs"; and,
B. people who will assert that something is true (1) out of ignorant error or (2) for an ulterior motive
...to make that distinction is more than we bargained for.
Jimbo and Larry set up the NPOV idea out of what I regard as a kind of philosophical and practical desperation: I realization that the only way a really huge wiki could operate successfully was to DUCK all issues of determining right and wrong, true and false, good and bad - and simply "describe fairly each point of view". Thus the term Neutral Point Of View means "not endorsing or rejecting ANY point of view".
It may be that Wikipedia has served its purpose: that it has reached the end of its tether. If so, we must look to others to build upon its foundation and continue onward.
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Mayer [mailto:maveric149@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 11:42 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Strawman attacks on recent proposals
--- Robert rkscience100@yahoo.com wrote:
Folks, we still have a major problem. There are many people
here who
unfortunately refuse to cite sources, engage in original research, write things that are just false and bizarre.
And the ArbCom is already charged with enforcing all Wikipedia policies, including those that are about content (such as NPOV, NOR, and Verifiability). We have in fact ruled in this area several times before but have been usually limited to cases that are fairly obvious.
Spotting subtle POV, original research, or fringe ideas masquerading as more mainstream than they are takes a fair amount of pre-existing knowledge in the relevant subject area. This is something that the current ArbCom could never have.
Thus my idea of having vetted panels of respected users who have demonstrated knowledge in certain areas that the ArbCom could call upon to help it distinguish what is what.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitratio
n/RFC#Alternate_solution_.239_by_mav._Content_subcommittee
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
I hope not... You made a VERY convincing case against the content comitee there...
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 6/7/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
Well, as Gomer Pyle would say:
- "Surprise, surprise, surprise"
Isn't this *precisely* what Larry Sanger was calling for? And wasn't this the *chief* criticism he made about Wikipedia in his famous screed?
That we need *some* sort of reliable group of experts ("vetted panels of respected users who have demonstrated knowledge in certain areas" as Mav put it) to give us a reliable clue as to what is really so.
Okay, maybe I shouldn't be so shrill and I-told-you-so-ish about this; sorry, I'll get off my high horse now.
Taking the course Mav suggests could either help us a lot or hurt us terribly. If we choose wise (and unbiased!) panels, we'll be able to add the adjective "reliable" (or "authoritative") to our main page's slogan. If we simly hold an election, chances are that voters will (deliberately or not) choose a panel which MERELY REFLECTS THEIR PREJUDICES AND BIASES.
It ultimately will come down to a question of:
- Who is worthy of our trust?
- How do we identify and attract such people?
- How can we prove to others that they merit our trust?
This task might be too hard for us, with our current organization. Now don't get me wrong: I really like the people on the arbcom, and I'm not wangling for a seat on it. I'm just saying that it's very difficult for non-experts to judge the qualifications of experts.
To distinguish between:
A. the scrupulously honest and self-sacrificial devotees of truth (of "what is") who are as M. Scott Peck wrote, "dedicated to reality at all costs"; and,
B. people who will assert that something is true (1) out of ignorant error or (2) for an ulterior motive
...to make that distinction is more than we bargained for.
Jimbo and Larry set up the NPOV idea out of what I regard as a kind of philosophical and practical desperation: I realization that the only way a really huge wiki could operate successfully was to DUCK all issues of determining right and wrong, true and false, good and bad - and simply "describe fairly each point of view". Thus the term Neutral Point Of View means "not endorsing or rejecting ANY point of view".
It may be that Wikipedia has served its purpose: that it has reached the end of its tether. If so, we must look to others to build upon its foundation and continue onward.
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Mayer [mailto:maveric149@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 11:42 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Strawman attacks on recent proposals
--- Robert rkscience100@yahoo.com wrote:
Folks, we still have a major problem. There are many people
here who
unfortunately refuse to cite sources, engage in original research, write things that are just false and bizarre.
And the ArbCom is already charged with enforcing all Wikipedia policies, including those that are about content (such as NPOV, NOR, and Verifiability). We have in fact ruled in this area several times before but have been usually limited to cases that are fairly obvious.
Spotting subtle POV, original research, or fringe ideas masquerading as more mainstream than they are takes a fair amount of pre-existing knowledge in the relevant subject area. This is something that the current ArbCom could never have.
Thus my idea of having vetted panels of respected users who have demonstrated knowledge in certain areas that the ArbCom could call upon to help it distinguish what is what.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitratio
n/RFC#Alternate_solution_.239_by_mav._Content_subcommittee
-- mav
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l