zero 0000 wrote
3. Sarah points out the following text from
WP:NOR :
"anyone--without specialist knowledge--who reads the
primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia
passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation
of primary source material requires a secondary source."
That seems to be broken. Examples of specialist knowledge
which might be required are the ability to read a foreign
language and the ability to understand mathematical notation.
I agree. Not only is this implausible in technical areas - it looks like an extrapolation
from current affairs and biography - it is self-defeating there. The whole point of making
good surveys, in less technical language and aimed at the 'general reader', is to
make an honest reformulation of technical literature by reducing the jargon. The aim is to
end up with readable articles, with reliable sources attached. It is not at all clear that
the 'general reader' should be assumed competent to compare the originals, in say
general relativity, with the formulation given. In fact the more this is insisted upon,
the harder it may be to write for wide comprehension.
Right. This is the sort of thing that leads people to conclude that
Wikipedia has a bias against experts. Those people who can read and
understand highly specialized source _and_ communicate those ideas in
language that is accessible to the general reader are the people we need
to attract to Wikipedia. The NOR policy section Sarah quoted tells those
people that their talents are not valued here.
-Rich