In some situations however it would be a good thing for the person with the degree in astrophysics to tell the person without to stfu.
Edo Nyland and those few who agree with his crackpot theories (http://www.highspeedplus.com/~edonon/linguist.htm) - ie, that all the modern languages of the world with the exception of Basque, Ainu, and the Dravidian languages were all invented by Benedictine monks as part of a conspiracy.
In addition to sloppy and inaccurate work (ie, not all of his rules apply all of the time, and he doesn't seem to realise that statistically any word, even one made up at random, you could find the "etymology" of by using his almost-too-large Basque dictionary and his system for deconstructing 'invented' words), his theories are just so astronomically stupid that nobody who spent 4 years studying linguistics (let alone somebody who has a PhD in linguistics) would buy any of his crap.
Without the makeshift credential system we already have in place to idiotproof the language-related articles of Wikipedia (see the response when some guy tried to add crap to the Finno-Ugric article about how it hasn't been proven as conclusively as it really has, and that most linguists disagree which they most certainly do not), he could add his theories all over Wikipedia.
Short of that, he could add shortcomings of the comparative method (the way REAL linguists find which languages are related) which don't really exist (there are shortcomings, but the ones he gives are extremely na"ive and show a complete lack of understanding of the complex statistical reasons why his own ideas do _not_ make any sense).
Without knowing something in advance about languages and linguistics or at least being able to recognise the mathematical problems with his ideas (not just any mathematician would be able to do that by looking at his ideas - you'd have to consider how many phonemes there are in language X, how many phonemes there are in Basque, how many words there are in the Basque dictionary he uses, and what the chances are he will find a match for a randomly-constructed non-word, which are about 100% because if he can't get a match using his normal rules, he ignores them and reaches outside of them for a match)... most non-linguists (or people without some advanced knowledge of languages and linguistics) do not notice the shortcomings of his ideas.
And his theory seems simpler and makes more sense from the POV of most non-linguists than the comparitive method.
In fact, it's so believable that his page on Yiddish etymology (ie, how it is an invented language derived from Basque rather than a language descended ultimately from Proto-Indo-European) received some sort of best-of-the-web award.
A few examples from Yiddish: "ashkenazim" - Nyland derivation: axola ' kena-azima Nyland translation (not actual Basque meaning usually): Worried about losing our identity; Actual origin: Hebrew "ashk@naaziim" actual translation of the origin: Germans "bar mitzvah" - Nyland derivation: ibarretshe imini itzaba Nyland translation:He has a work obligation at the house in the valley; Actual origin: 1. bar > Aramaic "bar" (son) form of "b@raa" > Proto-Semitic *bn 2. mitzvah > Hebrew "mitswah" (commandment) noun form of "tsiwwa" (to command) > Proto-Semitic *tswy "blintse" - N.d.: balintz ehotza N.t.: must be eaten; A.o.: Belarusian "blintsy" diminuitive-plural of "blin" (pancake) > Old Russian "blinue"/"mlinue" > Proto-IE *mlii (thing which has been ground up) extended form of *mel@ (to grind)
One from English: "eat" - N.d.: ea atondu N.t.: Especially prepared; A.o.: Middle English "eten" > Old English "etan" > Common Germanic "etan" > Proto IE *ed-
Mark
On 31/05/05, Joseph Reagle reagle@mit.edu wrote:
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].
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l