Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day David,
[AfD]
So. Is Wikipedia's provable anti-expert bias
here a good or bad
thing? If bad, what to do about it? Please discuss.
It depends on the expert. On the one hand, an unbiased view on AfD is a
very welcome thing. Imagine if SPUI were the sole authority on what
roadcruft we should keep, and what we should delete! And yet, he's
undeniably an amateur expert on transportation in the USA --- should his
opinion count for more than the metric truckload of people who don't
think an unnoteworthy back street encyclopaedic?
On the other hand, anti-expert bias is inherently a Bad Thing. Wikipedia
is too populist. We take experts and say to them "well, I'm an ignorant
moron from Power Cable, Nebraska, and my views count just as much as
yours do. So tell me, if you can, why Lyndon LaRouche isn't our Lord
and Saviour?"
The question is not whether we should be blanket pro- or anti-expert.
It's how far to either extreme we should lean.
Additionally, it's not like we don't have experts who want to help us;
we've had a few "your article on (blah) sucks, I'm an expert on (blah),
what should I do?", to which all I can do is write out {{sofixit}}
longhand. (If you've ever bothered to read the template, instead of just
referencing it by name, you'll realise that it's actually pretty useful...)
What worries me is that with our growing popularity, we're going to have
more experts arriving on our doorstep, trying to write articles on their
specialist areas, and leave in disgust when some 2-bit moron votes "d,
nn. cruft".
--
Alphax -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP