[WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

[Stan Shebs]

Marc Riddell wrote:
>   
> There seems to be a great concern about having verifiable material Œsources¹
> in Wikipedia that can be checked; why not place at least as much importance
> on the Œsources¹ (the editors) of the very material that is included? We
> want to be able to check the reliability of the substance of the text, but
> seem to place little importance on being able to check on who entered it in
> the first place.
>   
If the material is taken from an authoritative published source, why 
does it matter who typed it in? Is "the leaves are 20-30 cm long" more 
correct if it's personally typed in by the professional botanist, than 
by the high-school student who works from the botanist's book and lists 
it as a source?
> If I want to question the substance of an Article in Wikipedia, I should be
> able to go to an editor¹s personal information page and get a sense that
> they have the expertise to be editing the material, and a page where I can
> contact them with questions. Every, reputable reference work has this.
>   
"Get a sense"? So what you're saying is you want WP's reputation to hang 
on *your* intuition-based assessment of the editors' personal details? 
I'm an expert in some areas that I edit and an amateur in others, and as 
an expert it's hugely tempting to write into articles "this is true 
because *I* said so". But then how does someone else check that? I don't 
want to be answering the phone all day, and when I die, or more likely 
sooner, completely forget why I made the statement, what then? The whole 
approach of relying on "who you know" is really sloppy scholarship 
that's unfortunately common today, and I hope that WP will eventually 
come to be seen as exemplifying a stricter standard based on 
publications rather than personalities.

Stan