[Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 9/19/2010 10:47:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
peter.damian at btinternet.com writes:


> You have made your view very clear.  I've tried to be polite, and to 
> avoid 
> any talking-down, and I am sorry if it has appeared that way.  You use the 
> 
> collective 'we', meaning you speak for all Wikipedians.  To the other 
> Wikipedians here: is there a problem with academics 'talking down'?  Do 
> they 
> have a problem explaining their ideas in articles?  Are they 'too 
> rarified' 
> to be included in Wikipedia?  If so, can Wikipedia do without them? If 
> not, 
> how could they be encouraged to contribute better? 

Your reading comprehension is lacking.  If you again review my post you 
will find that I was quoting and thus responding to the quote you made where 
your colleague (or sock-puppet?) was stating that a particular article should 
be written and edited only by experts.  I find that it's never the case that 
an encyclopedia article cannot be understood enough by myself, to be able 
to add a word, or fix a usage, or add a source, at the least.  To make a 
claim like that is shocking to my senses, I fell right on the floor.

Some academics do not have a problem explaining their articles or edits,  
*some do*.  And some think they have an acknowledge high position from which 
to dictate.  That is false.

The point of view of an academic contributition, imho should be, "I'm in a 
better position to EXPLAIN this article, paragraph, sentence, edit".  Not 
"I'm in a better position to ENFORCE same."  The latter view is anathema to 
the project and must be shunned by all right-thinking people (the rest will be 
dealt with later by the re-education committee).

I hope my position is more clear now.  If you can't support your posiiton 
in such a way that most editors, non-experts, would say, "Oh I see, yes that 
seems clear and seems to have evidence..." then you have failed, not the 
reader and not the co-contributor who may not be an expert.