[Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 10/2/2010 10:04:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
peter.damian at btinternet.com writes:


> You missed the point again.  Sarah is not saying that the *readers* need 
> to 
> understand the basics.  She is saying that the problem is with *editors*. >
> >

And you've missed the point.
The entire thrust of our mission is to make readers into editors.
That is the point of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
You want to maintain the position of academics as a lofty top-level 
floating above the rest of society and we want to destroy it to level the field :)

Haven't you ever read Atlas Shrugged!
But seriously.  If readers *can* understand the article, then so can 
editors.
Your problem, is not that people can't *understand* it, it's that they 
don't *agree* with you.

Fine.  Yesterday, I starting fact-tagging an article that had a lot of odd 
claims in it.  My fellow editor went into a fit of pique and removed most of 
the article simply because he didn't want to have to find citations for his 
claims.

Good.  We do not want, read that again please, we DO NOT WANT, those 
academics who refuse to cite their claims.  We don't want them. :)

You're not an expert here because you *know*, you're an expert because you 
can support your claims.  You don't want that.  You want to just be an 
expert because you know without the need to prove it.  These articles aren't a 
private playground for a few highbrows, this is a brand-new medium never 
before encountered.  One in which even the most basic assumptions can be 
challenged, and are, and can be removed by anyone, any member of the public 
whatsoever, who feels the citations aren't firm or clear, and those who can't put up 
with that sort of mosh pit, are left in the dust.

W