--- NSK <nsk2(a)wikinerds.org> wrote:
On Tuesday 04 January 2005 17:55, Traroth wrote:
Does your proposition mean that only experts will
be
authorized to contribute ? That's a major change in
the Wikipedia spirit, and I desagree totally.
Non-experts contribute text, provided they give
their full legal name and
contact details. Experts contribute text and check
the non-experts' contributions.
Sounds like an interesting idea, but why do we need
'experts' for? Anyone can fact and reference check,
and after facts have been verified with multiple
sources they are then as 'credible' as credible can be
in my thinking.
It is time to apply the Wiki philosophy to not just
providing the content, but to verifying it with
reference checks from multiple sources. It worked for
content, I am sure it will work for verification if
the community are given the tools (tools such as
intelligent foot/end notes, autonumbering of
citations, etc.)
Technical issues aside, this has to do with systemic bias, not so much
in Wikipedia as in the society in general. It is natural that as
society members we would bring our biases with us into Wikipedia. A
bias perhaps becomes systemic when no-one recognizes it as a bias; it
takes some dumb little kid to yell out that the emperor has no clothes.
Objective truth has nothing to do with who is saying it. Many of us who
would write here have been around academic "experts" in the past, and it
is inevitable that some would have carried away a little of the idolatry
that comes from that association. One of the most frequent idolatrous
statements that I see is "IANAL". One should have surmised that
something was wrong 400 years ago when Shakespeare commented, "First
we'll kill the lawyers." Society abounds with stories of lawyers and
politicians (many of whom are lawyers) as thieves and scoundrels, but
incredibly we continue to defer to their expertise with that short
disclaimer.
Ec