In a message dated 9/19/2010 10:47:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
You have made your view very clear. I've tried to
be polite, and to
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
have a problem explaining their ideas in articles? Are they 'too
to be included in Wikipedia? If so, can Wikipedia do without them? If
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.