On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 09:32, Achal Prabhala <aprabhala(a)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.
--
byte-byte,
grin