On 3/21/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
abnormality. An expert on brains though would know that superficial analysis like this, relying only on two images at that (there are many types of "normal"), is practically worthless, and certainly that someone without training in neuroscience is not qualified to even make sense of such images. The anthropologist calls this sort of evidence "expert images," in that they give one the impression of being an expert, though real experts find them unclear and contestable. Anyway, I bring this up as just an analogy -- I think primary sources often serve as "expert sources" or something along those lines for Wikipedia users, which is why I am so cautious about people using them.
This is one of the scarier things about juries. I saw a documentary once that detailed a real murder case with expert evidence to do with DNA testing (and various other sorts) some remains after a couple of years. Members of the jury were interviewed afterwards, and made remarks like "oh, I didn't see how the evidence could have lasted that long"...even though the expert witness had just been telling them that it could.
All of which is to say that in Wikipedia we shouldn't ever be attempting to determine the actual worth of something prima facie - instead, we should only be including the comments of experts.
Steve
If we stick with secondary sources, then we dodge the problem alltogether. Furthermore, if Wikipedia cites a secondary source, it will never be "wrong" (viz. Nature) in a factual sense -- our greatest sin would then be one of picking the wrong sources or giving too much attention to marginal ones (which is a real question in and of itself, of course).
FF _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l