[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

[Michael Snow]

Steve Block wrote:

> David Gerard wrote:
>
>> Steve Block wrote:
>>
>>> I think they were advocates rather than experts, weren't they?
>>
>> This is not the case and does them a great injustice. Though it's
>> possible such an assumption of bad faith from outsiders was behind the
>> dedicated attempts to drive them off.
>
> That's not a bad faith assumption.  Eric Burns is, on one level, a 
> blogger who writes about webcomics.  Are we suggesting any blogger is 
> a reputable expert on a given field?

No, we're not, but in the field of webcomics, it's quite plausible for 
the reputable experts to come from the world of blogging. Perhaps after 
we've dealt with irrational prejudices against webcomics, we can move on 
to the problems caused by irrational prejudices against bloggers.

> There's a real problem with deciding the reliability and reputability 
> of online content.  Eric Burns is also still an advocate on 
> wikipedia.  The history of webcomics has not yet been written, so how 
> can he be anything but?  And given his involvement in the webcomics 
> field, how does one determine whether he is a partisan source?

If the history of webcomics has not yet been written, that would be a 
good reason to write it on Wikipedia. Someone who understands the field 
well enough to write a proper history can figure out who's a partisan 
source, what information they're still useful for, and how to balance 
their partisanship with other sources. It just requires critical 
thinking and editorial judgment.

--Michael Snow