On 1/17/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Ya know what we need in WP, an Article on Expertaphobia: The fear of, and seeming intimidation by, people who know stuff about things.
The problem with expertise on Wikipedia is how to judge whether or not someone is an expert.
In the article on Cheesesteak, people were constantly coming in with pronouncements on what kind of cheese was proper or what brand of roll was required, and insisting that they were Philadelphians and that they _knew_. But the thing was, some people that said they were experts said that an authentic Philadelphia cheesesteak had Cheese Whiz and coarsely cut meat, while other people who said they were experts said that an authentic Philadelphia cheesesteak had provolone cheese and finely chopped meat.
I couldn't judge their degree of expertise from their usernames. Nor could I judge it from the plausibility of their statements, how articulate or confident they sounded, or how good their grammar was.
Similarly, I accept that there _are_ people who _really know_ which movies and publications are authentic parts of the _Nightmare on Elm Street_ canon, but I don't know which of the people confidently making conflicting claims are the people who really know.
In the article on Cheesesteak, people were constantly coming in with pronouncements on what kind of cheese was proper or what brand of roll was required, and insisting that they were Philadelphians and that they _knew_. But the thing was, some people that said they were experts said that an authentic Philadelphia cheesesteak had Cheese Whiz and coarsely cut meat, while other people who said they were experts said that an authentic Philadelphia cheesesteak had provolone cheese and finely chopped meat.
That's the beautiful thing about Wikipedia. Why highlight the debate of,
say, any article related to science, the humanities or philosophy, when we've got the issue right there in a fine Philly Cheesesteak?
On 1/18/07, Nina Stratton ninaeliza@gmail.com wrote:
In the article on Cheesesteak, people were constantly coming in with pronouncements on what kind of cheese was proper or what brand of roll was required, and insisting that they were Philadelphians and that they _knew_. But the thing was, some people that said they were experts said that an authentic Philadelphia cheesesteak had Cheese Whiz and coarsely cut meat, while other people who said they were experts said that an authentic Philadelphia cheesesteak had provolone cheese and finely chopped meat.
That's the beautiful thing about Wikipedia. Why highlight the debate of,
say, any article related to science, the humanities or philosophy, when we've got the issue right there in a fine Philly Cheesesteak?
I don't know that I'd call the Cheese Whiz version "fine", but your point is good.
On 1/18/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/18/07, Nina Stratton ninaeliza@gmail.com wrote:
In the article on Cheesesteak, people were constantly coming in with pronouncements on what kind of cheese was proper or what brand of roll was required, and insisting that they were Philadelphians and that they _knew_. But the thing was, some people that said they were experts said that an authentic Philadelphia cheesesteak had Cheese Whiz and coarsely cut meat, while other people who said they were experts said that an authentic Philadelphia cheesesteak had provolone cheese and finely chopped meat.
That's the beautiful thing about Wikipedia. Why highlight the debate
of,
say, any article related to science, the humanities or philosophy, when we've got the issue right there in a fine Philly Cheesesteak?
I don't know that I'd call the Cheese Whiz version "fine", but your point is good.
Hell - I always thought it was swiss, philistine that I am.
The problem with expertise on Wikipedia is how to judge whether or not someone is an expert.
Exactly. And short of the foundation phoning people's universities and confirming degrees, it always will be. (And that only works for subjects where it's possible to get a degree... I don't think there is any easy way to confirm other kinds of qualifications (experience, for example).)
On 1/19/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The problem with expertise on Wikipedia is how to judge whether or not someone is an expert.
Exactly. And short of the foundation phoning people's universities and confirming degrees, it always will be. (And that only works for subjects where it's possible to get a degree... I don't think there is any easy way to confirm other kinds of qualifications (experience, for example).)
Really, it comes down to the edits and verifiability. If a person is adding content that's appropriately referenced, all it takes is checking a book out of the library to see whether that person's full of shit or not. The cheesesteak reference is a good one. The answer to that is (drumroll please), were either one of the statements sourced well?
If one can't find a source for their controversial statement, then it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article in the first place. That's the problem right now - Wikipedia has this "write then cite" thing going on it's tutorials, but it really should be the other way around. It would quell a lot of the rampant deletionism going on right now if that were done.
Nina
If you can't find a source, then you're statement doesn't belong on
Wikipedia anyway. I'm always encouraging people to source first (which runs a bit counter to current Wikipedia instructions, but could do away with a lot of the rampant deletionism).