[WikiEN-l] Knol product manager suggests it as a source for Wikipedia

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 7/25/2008 10:54:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
cbeckhorn at fastmail.fm writes:


> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 01:27:15PM -0400, WJhonson at aol.com wrote:
> > They are not the standard however.  For example in biography the  number 
> of 
> > "peer-review" articles is vanishingly small.  In Physics it is 
> overwhelming.  
> > Quite different animals.
> 
> If you are saying that too many of our biography articles (and pop-culture 
> articles) rely heavily on substandard sources, I completely agree. >>

-----------
No I'm saying that in certain subject-areas, the sources simply are not 
peer-reviewed by nature.
When was the last time you read a biography that was peer-reviewed?  It just 
doesn't happen.  Sure they are fact-checked by publishers, but that's not the 
same as peer-review.  Whatever "peer review" occurs with works of certain 
types, occurs as an afterthought in the way of published reviews and critiques, so 
in those cases, we'd note the biography and we'd note the critiques as well.  
As we do.
-----------

> 
> > You are wrong to lump "self-published material" with "even from experts".  
> 
> > That isn't what the policy states, nor what we hashed out over and over 
> years 
> > ago on this very point.  We made a clear distinction between 
> self-published 
> > material from non-experts, and self-published material from experts.  You 
> > argument seems to blur that distinction that we carefully  tried to draw.
> 
> Here is the entire text on the subject of self-published expert 
> sources from the current version of WP:V:
> 
> Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when 
> produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose 
> work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable 
> third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when 
> using such sources: if the information in question is really worth 
> reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
> 
> This is hardly a ringing endorsement of the use of self-published expert 
> writing. It explicitly encourages cautious use and a search for more 
> reliable sources (the "someone else"). 
> 
> In the end, we _should not_ be encouraging the use of self-published 
> expert writing, for the reasons I laid out in an earlier email. A lack 
> of ediitorial review is a magnet for theories and interpretations whose 
> due weight in our articles is very low. >>
> ---------------
> 

And I did not say a "ringing endorsement" Mr. Straw Man argument :)
There is a wide gap being "encouraging the use of" and "*allowing* the use 
of", I'm sure you would agree.

We are always, even in the case of "peer review" encouraged to seek more 
reliable sources, however the writing of "an established expert in the revelent 
field who has been previously published by reliable third-party publications", 
is by our policy a reliable source.

Should you use such a source cautiously and meanwhile seek a better one.  
Sure.  Just as you'd hopefully do with all sources.  The use of any source 
requires a certain amount of common sense and skepticism.

We are explicitely stating that such experts understand how to exercise 
self-review, self-censorship, and competency.  They are not identical with the 
general public.

Will Johnson


**************
Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign 
up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
      
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)