In a message dated 9/19/2010 10:47:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
peter.damian(a)btinternet.com writes:
> You have made your view very clear. I've tried to be polite, and to
> avoid
> any talking-down, and I am sorry if it has appeared that way. You use the
>
> collective 'we', meaning you speak for all Wikipedians. To the other
> Wikipedians here: is there a problem with academics 'talking down'? Do
> they
> have a problem explaining their ideas in articles? Are they 'too
> rarified'
> to be included in Wikipedia? If so, can Wikipedia do without them? If
> not,
> how could they be encouraged to contribute better?
Your reading comprehension is lacking. If you again review my post you
will find that I was quoting and thus responding to the quote you made where
your colleague (or sock-puppet?) was stating that a particular article should
be written and edited only by experts. I find that it's never the case that
an encyclopedia article cannot be understood enough by myself, to be able
to add a word, or fix a usage, or add a source, at the least. To make a
claim like that is shocking to my senses, I fell right on the floor.
Some academics do not have a problem explaining their articles or edits,
*some do*. And some think they have an acknowledge high position from which
to dictate. That is false.
The point of view of an academic contributition, imho should be, "I'm in a
better position to EXPLAIN this article, paragraph, sentence, edit". Not
"I'm in a better position to ENFORCE same." The latter view is anathema to
the project and must be shunned by all right-thinking people (the rest will be
dealt with later by the re-education committee).
I hope my position is more clear now. If you can't support your posiiton
in such a way that most editors, non-experts, would say, "Oh I see, yes that
seems clear and seems to have evidence..." then you have failed, not the
reader and not the co-contributor who may not be an expert.