On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 09:32, Achal Prabhala aprabhala@gmail.com wrote:
Jokes aside :) the problem here is exemplary of what Wikipedia *doesn't* do well, which is to find ways to assess the legitimacy of not-yet-legitimised knowledge - whether the 'truth' is new analysis backed up by serious scholarship (as in this case), or things that have not yet made it to reliable print scholarship (knowledge that's circulated orally, whether in conversations or social media). The core of the problem would appear to be our insistence on the narrowest and smallest possible definition of 'legitimate knowledge'. And I'd imagine that the solution is to find a workable, sensible and cross-culturally translatable version of legitimacy that is a lot better, bigger and more generous than what we have.
Thank you, that is a well phrased description of what I wanted to write.