Will, I suspect the problem may often have to do with due weight. To judge due weight, you
need to have an overview of the literature, not a single source that states what you want
to add to the article.
It is the same problem in climate change articles, where editors that have no overview of
the scientific literature may insist that the Telegraph blog they have just read must be
--- On Mon, 20/9/10, WJhonson(a)aol.com <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
From: WJhonson(a)aol.com <WJhonson(a)aol.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Date: Monday, 20 September, 2010, 20:14
In a message dated 9/20/2010 12:02:43
PM Pacific Daylight Time,
In my experience
the problem of humanities in Wikipedia is that the
methods and training of
the 'experts' is so fundamentally different from that
by and large have no training at all) that disputes
nearly always turn
You are again stating the problem as expert vs pedestrian
However I again submit that in Wikipedia, you are not an
you have a credential, you are an expert because you behave
like an expert.
When challenged to provide a source, you cite your source
and other readers
find, that it does actually state what you claim it
However it seems to me that you'd perhaps like experts to
be able to make
unchallengeable claims without sources.
If I'm wrong in that last sentence, then tell me why being
an expert is any
different than being any editor at all.
What is the actual procedure by which, when an expert
edits, we see
something different than when anyone edits.
I can read a book on the History of the Fourth Crusade, and
adds quotes to
our articles on the persons and events, just as well as an
expert in that
The problem comes, imho, when "experts" add claims that are
when challenged on them, get uppity about it.
The issue is not uncited claims, or challenged
claims. All of our articles
have uncited claims and many have challenged and
The issue is how you are proposing these should be treated
differently if the
claim comes from an "expert" versus a "non-expert", isn't
So address that.
foundation-l mailing list