[WikiEN-l] A future for Nupedia?

[Ray Saintonge]

Matt R wrote:

> --- Jens Ropers <ropers at ropersonline.com> wrote: 
>  
>
>>I would PLEAD with everyone to '''not''' go the road of requiring 
>>academic certifications for approval (or even to value them 
>>excessively).
>>    
>>
>>But we should not, definitely not, ''require'' academic accreditation 
>>in any way -- or even attach substantial value to it. Let 
>>contributions, not certificates be our decisive factors. Accepting 
>>something because A says it and A is academically accredited as xyz is 
>>the reverse of an [[ad hominem]] attack -- and it's equally flawed 
>>logic, IMHO. 
>>    
>>
>
><snip>
>
>I disagree with you. Personally, I would distinguish between the process for
>writing articles, and the process of evaluating the quality of articles. For
>the former, when *writing* articles, academic qualifications should confer no
>additional authority or weight -- an unqualified person should have an equal
>right to edit the content of an article as should a PhD.
>
>However, when certifying the quality of articles, I think expert review (in
>addition to general review) is necessary -- I can give reasons for this, if you
>want. Academic qualifications are one form of evidence of expertise.
>
>As an example, if physics Prof. Alice and a "layman" -- Bob -- are editing an
>article on [[quantum physics]], and they disagree on a point, they should
>discuss it, and cite sources etc; obviously, Alice is not given precedence over
>Bob because of her position and qualifications. On the other hand, I would
>suggest that Wikipedia should give somewhat more weight to a Professor Carol,
>with a 15-year publication record in the field, compared to layman Dave when
>Carol says that revision 82 of [[quantum physics]] is a thorough and accurate
>treatment of the subject. 
>
>I would emphasise that I *don't* believe that academics are infallible arbiters
>of truth. My main point is that review of articles requires, amongst other
>things, expertise. My secondary point is that some evidence of expertise can be
>found, amongst many other places, in academia.
>  
>
The importance of review by academics varies from one topic to another.  
It is of far greater importance in a subject like quantum physics than 
history.  The average person may be able to read and fully understand a 
text in history, but a much more advanced knowledge is required to 
understand quantum physics.  Source references are important in either 
case to enable the user to delve deeper into a subject, and to verify 
the material to his own satisfaction.

Our standard disclaimer is appropriate.  Still, there are many people 
who give too much credence to what they see on the net.  We would do 
well to do our share to dispel the notion that ANYTHING on the net is 
definitive.  But then too, one might make similar comments about any 
thing in traditional print mediums.  A reader needs to accept a share of 
the  responsibility for what he reads.

Ec