[WikiEN-l] Troubling news on Citizendium

[Marc Riddell]

> From: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud at waterwiki.info>
> Reply-To: fredbaud at waterwiki.info, English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:57:07 +0000
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Troubling news on Citizendium
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marc Riddell [mailto:michaeldavid86 at comcast.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 10:24 AM
>> To: 'English Wikipedia'
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Troubling news on Citizendium
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> From: "Nina Stratton" <ninaeliza at gmail.com>
>>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:20:48 -0800
>>> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Troubling news on Citizendium
>>> 
>>> +!
>>> 
>>> On 1/17/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Phil Sandifer wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> [...] If Larry wants an encyclopedia free of its biases, he should
>>>>> work on one. But he shouldn't call it an encyclopedia run by experts
>>>>> if he's going to dismiss the experts.
>>>>> 
>>>> There are plenty of experts going at each other with knives on WP;
>>>> expertise is simply a fund of knowledge, and does not magically confer
>>>> diplomatic, communication, or collaboration skills. In fact, great
>>>> knowledge tends to breed arrogance, making conflict more likely, not
>>>> less so. CZ adds real names and attributions to the mix, raising the
>>>> stakes even further by introducing the possibility of effect on one's
>>>> careers. The organizer would need the superior political skills of an
>>>> Ivy League dean to make it all work, but Larry's forum postings don't
>>>> evidence much improvement at diplomacy since the times he was angering
>>>> editors on WP.
>>>> 
>>>> Stan
>> 
>> Ya know what we need in WP, an Article on Expertaphobia: The fear of, and
>> seeming intimidation by, people who know stuff about things.
>> 
>> Someone, I don't recall who it was, wrote that they would never work on
>> something where experts were involved. Really? Who would you go to if you
>> needed heart surgery, or wanted to learn how to play a violin?
>> 
>> Don't look now, but you are working with the aid of experts right now! Those
>> marvelous persons behind the scenes of this computerized market place who
>> make all of this possible. Without them we would be typing into the ether.
>> 
>> Ease up!
>> 
>> Marc Riddell
> 
> Unless I have gotten the personalities mixed up, Stan is himself an certified
> expert employed in an academic setting, which is one reason he can make such
> an incisive comment about Larry. When I was butting heads with Larry over
> [[reality]] and [[knowledge]] on Wikipedia in the old days, we were both doing
> essentially the same thing, I was doing my original research thing, making up
> stuff from whole cloth, while Larry was, working apparently from memory,
> putting forth the party line as taught in a freshman philosophy course, as he
> understood it. It did not occur to either of us to cite substantial reliable
> sources. What resulted was mutual disgust, vigorously expressed.
> 
> Experts, to function well on Wikipedia, need to more than just proclaim
> themselves an expert and regurgitate what they learned in school. Particularly
> they must be familiar with the literature and be able to cite it. That may be
> a rare talent, as is excellent teaching, the underlying skill that is involved
> in writing an introductory textbook, which is what a Wikipedia article is, in
> part.
> 
> Fred

Fred,

I was not referring to anyone in particular; simply the attitudes some in WP
seem to have regarding the input of "experts"

Marc
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l