Andre Engels wrote:
This seems to be exactly the problem Larry Sanger talks about - We don't care whether somebody is a renowned expert on a subject or has just read a few lines related to a subject in the past. If they can write it down, we consider them equal.
Some in the community surely do feel this way. But I don't, and my impression from talking to and meeting tons of wikipedia volunteers is a very profound respect for learning, and a keen desire that we *get it right*.
There is a certain amount of healthy skepticism about Nupedia-style credentialism, and I think this is also valuable.
An example may help to illustrate what I mean.
Adam Carr isn't right about history because he has a PhD -- he's right about history because he's a serious scholar to cares about getting it right, and he's done his homework. Herschelkrustofsky is a POV pushing problem user.
What does this mean? It means that Adam might be right or might be wrong about any given thing, but we should listen to him and treat him with due respect. And if someone with no credentials shows up and corrects some error of Adam's, with proper citations, then that's great too.
A second fallacy I see in this message is that it equates factual correctness with credibility. There's more than just factual correctness to make a good article, there is also balance. Getting experts is not what helps here (although it helps a bit, because they are supposed to know about the subject, and thus notice missing portions), but we should recognize the problem as being one.
Indeed.
--Jimbo