On Tuesday 31 May 2005 03:46, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I personally don't like the idea, because it does create a sense of "I have a PHD in Astrophysics and you don't so stfu" that I don't think would be conducive to the exercise of wikilove.
I do agree that this is a danger to be considered.
Another possible outcome is that it helps make it clear the extent to which "non-experts" make useful contributions. For much of their history encyclopedias were compiled by the learned, but not necessarily "experts" -- the very notion is a modern innovation. In any case, even then, useful contribution were made by folks outside of their field [1], such as Thomas Young [2].
[1] [[ Unpublished However, to claim that reputation motivated contributions is not to state that all participants were simply seeking fame. In fact, Thomas Young, the natural philosopher who worked on the wave theory of light while also deciphering the Rosetta Stone by 1840, agreed to contribute to the Britannica, but required anonymity in any subject "not immediately medical"; Young did not want scientific controversies to weaken the confidence the public had in his capacities as a physician (Yeo 2001:265). ]] [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Young_(scientist)
In fact, I think the compilation of materials by the competent but non-expert has a usefulness related to what I call the Feynman notion of simplicity: "His principle was that if a topic could not be explained in a freshman lecture, it was not fully understood yet" [3].