[Wikipedia-l] A Solution to Larry Sanger's Criticisms - Project Has Been Around For A While

[Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales]

Andre Engels wrote:
> This seems to be exactly the problem Larry Sanger talks about - We
> don't care whether somebody is a renowned expert on a subject or has
> just read a few lines related to a subject in the past. If they can
> write it down, we consider them equal.

Some in the community surely do feel this way.  But I don't, and my
impression from talking to and meeting tons of wikipedia volunteers is
a very profound respect for learning, and a keen desire that we *get
it right*.

There is a certain amount of healthy skepticism about Nupedia-style
credentialism, and I think this is also valuable.

An example may help to illustrate what I mean.

Adam Carr isn't right about history because he has a PhD -- he's right
about history because he's a serious scholar to cares about getting it
right, and he's done his homework.  Herschelkrustofsky is a POV
pushing problem user.

What does this mean?  It means that Adam might be right or might be
wrong about any given thing, but we should listen to him and treat him
with due respect.  And if someone with no credentials shows up and
corrects some error of Adam's, with proper citations, then that's
great too.

> A second fallacy I see in this message is that it equates factual
> correctness with credibility. There's more than just factual
> correctness to make a good article, there is also balance. Getting
> experts is not what helps here (although it helps a bit, because they
> are supposed to know about the subject, and thus notice missing
> portions), but we should recognize the problem as being one.

Indeed.

--Jimbo