[Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 9/20/2010 12:02:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
peter.damian at btinternet.com writes:


> In my experience 
> the problem of humanities in Wikipedia is that the methods and training of 
> 
> the 'experts' is so fundamentally different from that of 'Wikipedians' 
> (who 
> by and large have no training at all) that disputes nearly always turn 
> ugly. >>
> 

You are again stating the problem as expert vs pedestrian (untrained at 
least).

However I again submit that in Wikipedia, you are not an "expert" because 
you have a credential, you are an expert because you behave like an expert.  
When challenged to provide a source, you cite your source and other readers 
find, that it does actually state what you claim it states.

However it seems to me that you'd perhaps like experts to be able to make 
unchallengeable claims without sources.

If I'm wrong in that last sentence, then tell me why being an expert is any 
different than being any editor at all.

What is the actual procedure by which, when an expert edits, we see 
something different than when anyone edits.

I can read a book on the History of the Fourth Crusade, and adds quotes to 
our articles on the persons and events, just as well as an expert in that 
specific field.

The problem comes, imho, when "experts" add claims that are unsourced, and 
when challenged on them, get uppity about it.

The issue is not uncited claims, or challenged claims.  All of our articles 
have uncited claims and many have challenged and yet-unfulfilled claims.  
The issue is how you are proposing these should be treated differently if the 
claim comes from an "expert" versus a "non-expert", isn't it?

So address that.

Will Johnson