On 10 Sep 2004, at 10:35, wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org wrote:
Message: 9 Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:20:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] A future for Nupedia?
--- Patrick Aiden Hunt skyler1534@comcast.net wrote:
I know this may seem to some to be a silly question, but why do you need someone with academic credentials reviewing articles? Any normal encyclopedia simply uses a basic bibliography and the information in the article is from books that are written by experts who have academic credentials already recognized. If we had people simply cite sources for information, then it seems like we would have to worry much less about the reviewers' credentials.
Pragmatic; many people will not trust and in fact warn people against using our content otherwise. Think of it as building a bridge to the old way of publishing and to the drones who think that is the only way content can be trusted.
If we'd insist on, or automatically give preference to, academic credentials/individuals at any stage and in any way, then we'd yield to, and become part of, the self-fulfilling prophecy that only academic folks can "get it right".
Please understand that I'm not against academics participating in our review processes (just as everybody else). But I'm very much against reverting the Wikipedia into just another place where "academically accredited" equals "holier than thou". I fervently favour the notion of "one man, one vote" (with apologies to non-sexist language advocates). Just because most people in the world today allow many of their equally good ideas to be overruled by <awe>academic experts</awe>, doesn't make it the right thing to do. Yes, true, most academics are, on average, probably better qualified than non-academics. But under the traditional system A LOT of brilliant brilliant input is lost, because people are simply put off by never having a chance of working as equals (unless they ''become'' academics as well) and people are put off by that, if not even turned away at the door for failing to meet "minimum standards".
I believe. I believe that every human is unique. I believe that every human has unique contributions to make to human knowledge. I believe that in an ideal world there would be a system of joint knowledge aggregation that could embrace everybody's contribution and then magically combine these contributions (diverse and imperfect, all) into something elaborate and serene that's more than the sum of its parts. I believe that Wikipedia currently ''IS'' that dream. It allows just that to happen. Not easily, not automatically, not without dispute, but it does happen. It would pain me if our future implementations of our review processes would end that dream. Because taking this "pragmatic" step is not a bridge to the past. It's ''becoming'' the bad old days again. And I for one, would feel betrayed for all the contributions I made. The Wikipedia you're proposing is not the Wikipedia I submitted my work to.
-- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
PS: This is NOT against having a better review system -- I ''DO'' want just that. I again refer to my previous post: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030496.html
Again, I hold that the "review club" should be very open to all comers, just as the "edit club". We may choose a more disciplined approach within the "review club" and be more harsh about disturbances, but we absolutely should not ask for (and entrants should not mention their) academic qualifications at the doorstep. Their ''actual writing'' should be their sole guarantor. With reference to this post: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030499.html If renowned academic Alice cannot conclusively prove and defend her view of things and layman Bob can, then we should follow Bob. We should NOT believe something is right just because "the right people" say it. That's a reverse ad-hominem. Go read the [[ad hominem]] article. Do it now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem