In a message dated 9/19/2010 10:47:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time, peter.damian@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.