[Foundation-l] Subject: Re: The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia, (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions

[Ray Saintonge]

On 02/22/12 6:04 PM, David Goodman wrote:
> There are many subjects in which there would be multiple schools of
> thought with little agreement; anyone following book reviews in the
> humanities or social sciences or even some of the sciences would know
> the intensity with which the highest level scholars attack the work of
> those they disagree with. Appoint one as expert, and that field will
> have a substantial bias. Appoint several, and they will endlessly
> dispute with each other.

We shouldn't expect ourselves to be exempt from this kind of academic 
discourse. We owe it to our readers to provide a clear and fair-minded 
presentation of these differences.
> We already have no problem with the true expert who is content to
> learn our rules and work by them. We do have problems accommodating
> the true expert who is right on his position but too impatient to
> learn and work by our practices.  We're a medium of a certain unique
> sort, and what we need are the experts who can work within a communal
> system of editing.  Communal editing , however,  does not require
> rudeness: we can encourage those  who could work here, but are
> reluctant to engage in our schoolyard level of discourse.

We absolutely need to be severe with persistently rude admins.  We need 
to be able to engage fairly with would-be editors, remembering that 
guidelines need to be flexible.
> What we do not want is the expert of whatever quality who intends to
> work by authority rather than discussion.
>
When it comes to processes arguing on the basis of the wording in some 
policy page is working by authority. It takes advantage of the person 
who has no idea where to look for the rule that fits his particular 
situation.

Ray