On 1/19/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The problem with expertise on Wikipedia is how to
judge whether or
not someone is an expert.
Exactly. And short of the foundation phoning people's universities and
confirming degrees, it always will be. (And that only works for
subjects where it's possible to get a degree... I don't think there is
any easy way to confirm other kinds of qualifications (experience, for
example).)
_______________________________________________
Really, it comes down to the edits and verifiability. If a person is
adding content that's appropriately referenced, all it takes is checking a
book out of the library to see whether that person's full of shit or not.
The cheesesteak reference is a good one. The answer to that is (drumroll
please), were either one of the statements sourced well?
If one can't find a source for their controversial statement, then it
doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article in the first place. That's the problem
right now - Wikipedia has this "write then cite" thing going on it's
tutorials, but it really should be the other way around. It would quell a
lot of the rampant deletionism going on right now if that were done.
Nina
If you can't find a source, then you're statement doesn't belong on
Wikipedia anyway. I'm always encouraging people to
source first (which runs
a bit counter to current Wikipedia instructions, but could do away with a
lot of the rampant deletionism).
--
Sincerely,
Nina
"Look at the sky. We are not alone. The whole universe is friendly to us and
conspires only to give the best to those who dream and work." - Abdul Kalam