Well the thing is that wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Would'nt it be
best for experts to set up their own wikis full of boring informations
and crappy details ?
I am not that sure that encycopedia should be written by experts. It
must give state-of-the-art information but I know plenty of people able
to write very good articles about subject they are not experts in...
and that the work journalist do everyday.
Plus, second argument, who will choose experts and on what basis ? Just
as you said, a PhD means nothing when it comes to your knowledge level.
So, how will you choose experts ? Who ? etc.
For all these reasons, it's quite clear that wikipedia should not be a
"public fora" for experts. If they want one, it's much better to
install their own mediawiki on some server to build a knowledge base on
any subject they want to talk about.
Jean-Baptiste Soufron, Doctorant
CERSA - CNRS, Paris 2
http://soufron.free.fr
Le 6 janv. 05, à 11:02, Andre Engels a écrit :
Daniel Mayer:
I respect Larry and what he did to help Wikipedia
along in its first
year. But
I will never just assume that somebody with a PhD is right since many
PhDs all
too often are not; I've come across and know of a good many PhDs who
have axes
to grind and who have pet theories to push.
NPOV is a much better guarantee of accuracy than trusting a supposed
expert
(although I do highly value feedback from field experts - I just
don't take
their ideas as the last word).
I disagree. NPOV does not in any way guarantee accuracy. At best it
stops the most extreme cases of theory-pushing, at worst it leads to a
ridiculous degree of relativism.
And even where NPOV is concerned, an expert is much more useful than
just someone off the street. A non-expert POV-warrior will easily blow
away a non-expert NPOV-fighter, simply because he is the one who has
read at least something about the subject. An expert POV-warrior will
have a much harder time fighting an expert NPOV-fighter.
I think there's a large area between "valuing feedback" and "giving
the last word". It would be worthwhile to explore it. And it would be
worthwhile to make a decision whom we DO give the last word.
Many in academia are used to being the
gatekeepers and stewards of
information. Wiki opens those gates to anybody with an Internet
connection. So
many in academia will always recoil in horror at the mere concept -
that is
their problem, their failing, not ours.
Maybe it should be our problem. Maybe we should be listening to what
others see as problems with our methods, rather than closing our ears
and shouting how great it is. Wikipedia is great, but that should not
stop us from trying to find ways to make it even better.
Andre Engels
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l