As I've made clear already, I'm all for trying to find a way vouchsafe the
reliability of those of our articles that actually are reliable. We've
just got to make sure we don't shoot ourselves in the foot doing it!
I'd like to ask this: what is the purpose of this present certification
proposal?
*If* you're trying to improve the credibility of Wikipedia among people
who *really need* accurate information about the reliability of
articles--people like students, teachers (at all levels), librarians, and
anyone doing serious research--then I don't see how this proposal can
work. Why should any of these sorts of people believe that an article
*actually is* reliable, just because a dozen participants have pressed a
button saying it's good--if it's possible that not a single actual expert
has looked at it? We've all seen instances of articles that looked OK to
nonexperts but that turned out to be, in the opinion of an expert that
happens by, decidedly inadequate. It doesn't take an epistemologist to
see that accuracy cannot be vouchsafed by a vote--10, or 100, or 1000
approving Wikipedians certainly *can* be wrong!
But that isn't the most important issue here. The most important issue is
this: I suspect that, if I understand it correctly, implementing the
proposal would actually *undermine* Wikipedia's credibility. Here is what
all sorts of sober thinkers, not on the project, will think about it when
they learn about how articles are certified: "The same people who *write*
these articles, of uneven quality and obviously questionable credibility,
are the ones who presume to certify that they're accurate? Well, if the
people in charge of the project think *that's* how to guarantee the
reliability of an article, that's reason to think the articles *aren't*
reliable, and that the project shouldn't be taken seriously."
By contrast, the proposal I made not long ago (I know, I haven't followed
up--I suddenly got very busy), of having a completely separate website,
managed by actual subject area experts, containing a subset of Wikipedia
articles, achieves the purpose (improving the credibility of some
Wikipedia articles among librarians et al.) much more handily.
By no means am I saying that credentialled people, or "experts," are
(because they're experts) *necessarily* reliable. Plenty of people with
lots of credentials can't give us a trustworthy opinion as to the
reliability of an article. But we can't do better, and it's the opinion
of these people--the duly anointed "knowers" (the tongue's in cheek
here)--that students, teachers, and others look up to for their benchmark
as to what is currently known. That's a fact. It's not a WikiWiki fact
or attitude, but it *is* a fact, and we can't change it. The more
"elitist" proposal might not be "WikiWiki," but there IS no WikiWiki way
to satisfy teachers, librarians, and serious researchers about the
reliability of a WikiWiki.
Now, if satisfying the librarians et al. is not your aim with the
proposal, I think that's too bad; but then I really do have to wonder what
the point of this certification proposal is. Is it a way for Wikipedians
to win kudos from each other? If so, can we please not do that?
Wikipedia is *not*, I think, about building a community and winning kudos
and stroking egos. It's first and foremost about building an
*encyclopedia*.
Larry
Adding a new sig!
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell