On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 04:16:05AM +0200, NSK wrote:
On Thursday 06 January 2005 04:02, Mark Williamson wrote:
If I were you, I would tell my brother "The GREAT thing about Wikipedia is that YOU are allowed to fix that, and are invited to do
Many people expect an encyclopedia to include all the information they are demanding and not just invite them to write it. This type of persons (and they are many) will never submit anything even if they are experts on it.
Actually there are two kinds of experts (in my experience):
* the first kind knows a lot but does not want to (or cannot) explain it to unexperienced people without the required background. the results are articles which are more useless than not since only 1% of the readers' population can understand it. repeated requests result the expert being offended (or denying to "lower the level") and leaving Wikipedia.
* the other kind knows a lot but able to rephrase it for the masses, and willing to. it requires a very open minded approach since s/he have to write _unexact_ and _unprofessional_ things to fill the gaps in the reader's background, or not to assume that something is common knowledge. these experts are my faviourite contributors because they're a vast source of real facts to learn, and they are able to make it understandable. I welcome these experts, and would like to have them in unlimited numbers.
What I do not expect that we have the strength (or the right to demand) contributors changing their attitude, lower their level of professional writing style and talk on the level of the masses.
Those experts who are in the first group will criticise Wikipedia for the articles, but it is often useless to ask them to contribute because they cannot. Either they go away, or transform an article to a professional, legthy and uncomprehensible stuff that editors start to revert because they don't get it, and it's unfit for a general encyclopedia.
The experts in the second group usually have the brains to fix the problems without making the noise. That's their personality. (Sometimes they ask about it the first time, very politely.)
I tend to prejudice experts who criticise without doing about it and list them in my first mental group, and try to prepare for what happens after, and I tend to avoid reminding them about the possibility of contribution instead of whining.
My 2 'cents. [[:en:user:grin]]
ps: interesting effect I just observed was that a POV [[:en:Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antifinnugor|problem user]] started a widespread war and demanded experts. miraculously an expert arrived (on huwiki, where this originated) and started to explain reality. after a short while he felt that Wikipedia is a bunch of stupid morons who ignore facts and write unscientific articles. since he is in the second group he was relieved to know - after some explanation - that he debated with one user with lots of (questionable) contributions, and not with "Wikipedia" itself. But this could be a problem: an expert experiencing trolls and POV users without preparation, and leaving in believing that Wikipedia is a bunch of POV users... And they do not have the time to debate/prove their knowledge with John Does who state that the Earth is flat on the back of 4 elephants. Tough.