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
prominently featured.
--- 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?
To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Monday, 20 September, 2010, 20:14
In a message dated 9/20/2010 12:02:43
PM Pacific Daylight Time,
peter.damian(a)btinternet.com
writes:
In my experience
the problem of humanities in Wikipedia is that the
methods and training of
the 'experts' is so fundamentally different from that
of
'Wikipedians'
(who
by and large have no training at all) that disputes
nearly always turn
ugly. >>
You are again stating the problem as expert vs pedestrian
(untrained at
least).
However I again submit that in Wikipedia, you are not an
"expert" because
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
states.
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
specific field.
The problem comes, imho, when "experts" add claims that are
unsourced, and
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
yet-unfulfilled claims.
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
it?
So address that.
Will Johnson
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l