[WikiEN-l] Times article (London)

[Ian Woollard]

On 18/08/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> on 8/18/07 8:09 AM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton at gmail.com wrote:
> > Were the grounds really pure bullshit?
>
> In their opinions, and, in some of the cases, mine - yes the grounds were
> bullshit. Because, the grounds for disagreement by the disputing editors
> were based on popular notions of the subject and self-help nonsense.

If the grounds were bullshit then the articles should be reverted back
to the experts version. If the experts had a valid cite then there's
no excuse. If they didn't then it's much more arguable.

> In all cases here we are talking about the subjects of human behavior and
> other very basic psychosocial concepts. I will not be more specific about
> the Articles in question so as not to single-out any specific editor. But,
> in each case, the objections they had were based upon "that's not what I
> learned" and other pop-psych nonsense. How do you deal with that without
> running into the 3RR?

I think that domain experts should be paired with wikiexperts; that
way the wikiexperts can hand-hold the domain experts around the
wikirules, and help revert unreasonable edits by others.

> I ask this with my tongue partially planted in my cheek: If a person,
> recognized as especially knowledgeable in a field, makes an edit to a
> article in that field, then cites their own texts as sources, would this be
> acceptable to the Project? Do you see what I¹m getting at? Who would
> Einstein have cited?

Lorentz; or other people that have studied Einstein. Push came to
shove he could ask somebody notable to write something about it and
then reference it ;-)

> Marc

-- 
-Ian Woollard

We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly
imperfect world things could be a lot better.