[WikiEN-l] Re: A future for Nupedia? Academic degrees have real usefulness

[Robert]

re:A future for Nupedia? Academic degrees have real
usefulness 

Jens Ropers wirtes:
> The only thing I am lobbying you all against is
> that we (a) make degrees a requirement of some sort
> at any stage in the process

I would agree with this.

> (b) and/or automatically value input from an academic
> more than input from a non-academic. I still think 
> it is obvious (to me anyway) that ''most'' of the 
> time academics will prevail with their views. 
> ''But they will do so '''based on the merit of what 
> they say'' and NOT based on the recognition of their
title.''

I would agree with this as well.  I do feel that someone
who spent four years in college and an additional two years
earning a master, or an additional three to seven years
earning a Ph.D. is much more likely to be worth listening
to.  Wikipedia contributors, myself included, are a
self-selected bunch of Internet-advocates.  Some of us are
very much worth listening to, while some are not. 

Interestingly, our qualifications change while we are
writing.  I know more now about cladograms and the
evolution of reptiles than I knew two years ago. What I
would have written two or more years ago probably would
have been misleading, incomplete or totally wrong. What I
have written in the last year, in contrast, is pretty much
up to snuff (That is, AFAIK.)

Having an expert or two on a particular subject adds quite
a bit, because they can correct oversights on points we
aren't even cognizant of!

Jen writes:
> Currently, no contributor is allowed to argue: "But I am
> a senior professor of quantum dynamics, so I win and you 
> shut up!"  It is VERY important that this remains so. 

Well, this depends on the case. If someone is saying that
multiple theories on quantum dynamics exist, and our
reviewer favors one theory, then Jen is correct: Such an
argument by a reviewer would be invalid.  Even Ph.D.s have
to follow our NPOV policy.  At best they could say "Most
physicists accept Prof. Simon's formulation of QED, while a
small minority accept Prof. Timov's forumlation of QED." 
No Wikipedia contributor can speak "ex cathredra".

However, a a Ph.D. in this subject can and should say "so I
win and you shut up" when dealing with someone who is
trying to write stuff like "I am a self-taught PHYSICIST,
and I have discovered that QUANTUM MECHANICS is NOT real,
and my theory is being SURPRESSED by the intellectual
elite. My theory, on my WEB PAGE for $25, should have equal
mention in this article!!!"  Statements that clearly and
obviously erroneous, or crank views held by a tiny
population (often a population of one!) do not need mention
in our articles.

IOW, I agree with Jen's concerns. As I currently understand
it, our standard NPOV policy should prevent the abuses that
she is correctly concerned about.

Robert (RK)


=====
I’m astounded by people who want to "know" the universe when it’s hard enough to find your way around Chinatown. - Woody Allen


		
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com