[Wikipedia-l] Certification

[Larry Sanger]

> From: Peter Lofting <lofting at apple.com>
>
> At 12:41 PM -0800 10/31/02, Larry Sanger wrote:
> >...It doesn't take an epistemologist to
> >see that accuracy cannot be vouchsafed by a vote--10, or 100, or 1000
> >approving Wikipedians certainly *can* be wrong!
>
> Sure its not fireproof, but it gives a measure of the degree of
> consensus behind the article, which has some interpretable value:
>
> - Firstly it indicates that the article hasn't been vandalized and is
> not contentious - at least as far as the generalist editorial
> midwives are concerned.
>
> - Secondly it shows that it has passed at least first levels of
> evolution - perhaps only of structure and linking. Interrelationships
> to other info is itself valuable even if the body of the article
> isn't top notch.

Hi Peter,

This is all perfectly true.  I didn't mean to say that an "everybody has a
vote" certification proposal would be simply useless.

But is there a *solid reason* for the "everybody has a vote" certification
proposal?  I'm still not sure I understand what it is.  The above are
advantages, but they don't clearly indicate what the reason, or purpose of
the proposal is.

> To suggest that a votes flag would highlight collective wikipedian
> ignorance on a subject implys the fearful belief that members are
> obliged to know everything. Isn't this belief opposite to the whole
> idea of a Wikipedia?

Well, I'm not aware that *I* suggested any such thing...

> It sounds like the project is overshadowed by the old social
> expectation of the high standards expected of an encyclopedia
> publisher. The project is bound to lose credibiity if it fails to
> unload this expectation from immature pages. Clear labelling would
> dispell this and reflect that pages are a living, evolving work, as
> well as invite improved contributions.

Maybe!  It *might* also suggest to readers familiar with Everything2 and
Kuro5hin and other projects that are self-evaluating, that the project is
essentially a self-contained community, interested in impressing itself
and not really interested in meeting independent standards.

We all know that *accuracy* is only very poorly vouchsafed by a vote of
the general public.  That's as obvious a philosophical platitude as any.
And while we rightly regard the typical Wikipedia participant as much more
intelligent and well-informed than the average citizen of the Internet,
the *reader*, who wants to rely on an encyclopedia for accurate
information, has no particular reason to believe this.  Much less does the
reader have any reason to believe that our being "above average" indicates
that articles we approve are necessarily reliable.

> All that would be necessary to gain credibility with students and
> librarians and experts is to accurately label the status of an
> article.

That's quite a bold claim to make, if you think about it.  Most librarians
and experts, at any rate, are very careful about what resources they want
to label as reliable.  They are, you might say, hired to be information
snobs.  They will only recommend the best.  And quite right, that's what
they should do.  So, no.  A mere label will not suffice.  The label has to
be, in addition, *credible to the people who might recommend the resource
to their students, colleagues, etc.*.

> Votes is only part of it. Another label could helpfully be
> added indicating whether the article has been reviewed by subject
> area experts or not.

...and if the label is right alongside a label indicating the general
publicly-voted status of the article, the "peer review" label will lose
some credibility, it seems.  Suppose Britannica were to put at the bottom
of an article, "Reviewed by John Doe, Ph.D., famous Xologist.  The general
public has rated this article a 7.2 (out of 10)."

> An endorsement list would be the ultimate way to go, showing
> names/URLs of individuals or bodies who have accepted the page as
> OK/useful, along with a rating value. Amazon.com book ratings could
> be a first model - open to all with a star rating. Note that such a
> list could also reflect variation in evaluation and people could then
> follow links to those endorsers who diverged in their rating to find
> out why.

But how on earth can we attract the "knowers" of the world to so much as
think about Wikipedia for one hot second, without giving them some
guarantee that they won't be wasting their time?  And how *do* we give
them that guarantee?

> Another benefit if this is it could divert the energies of those with
> strongly diverging POVs from "vandalizing" the page. They could
> instead channel their energies into expressing their difference via
> the rating and creating a linked counter-page...always room for one
> more page.

Do you mean that we could create competing pages on the same topic?
Well, notwithstanding the few pages where there are a few different
competing articles on the page (this is viewed as a temporary expedient),
this is one of the original ur-proposals for creating an encyclopedia, and
on both Nupedia and Wikipedia we've always come out against it.  Cf.
[[neutral point of view]].

I disagree also that there's always room for one more page; there isn't
always room for one more page.  The fact is that Wikipedia has succeeded
by being selective, in a certain sense.  If we had not constantly
insisted, "This is an encyclopedia, dammit!", and egged each other on to
uphold certain standards, then we might have ended up like just another
Everything2.  You might be shocked (or not :-) ) to hear me say that
Wikipedia is *selective*.  It makes it sound like Wikipedia is an
*elitist* project.  But you know what--to a certain extent, it *is* an
elitist project, and that is *partly* what's responsible for its success.
The fact that it's elitist is what certain people, who are probably more
jealous than anything, occasionally try to take us to task for, usually
fallaciously appealing to our sense of democracy, freedom, and openness.
How *dare* we think we can enforce a nonbias policy?  How *dare* we draw a
distinction between encyclopedia and dictionary?  How *dare* we ban people
who simply want to ruin the very thing we're working on?  Who do we think
we are, anyway?

People who ask those sorts of questions just fundamentally disagree about
Wikipedia is about--but that's putting it too nicely.  In fact, they
fundamentally lack the wisdom to understand what has really made it
possible in the first place.

Descending soapbox...

--Larry