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

[Jean-Baptiste Soufron]

Well the thing is that wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Would'nt it be 
best for experts to set up their own wikis full of boring informations 
and crappy details ?

I am not that sure that encycopedia should be written by experts. It 
must give state-of-the-art information but I know plenty of people able 
to write very good articles about subject they are not experts in... 
and that the work journalist do everyday.

Plus, second argument, who will choose experts and on what basis ? Just 
as you said, a PhD means nothing when it comes to your knowledge level. 
So, how will you choose experts ? Who ? etc.

For all these reasons, it's quite clear that wikipedia should not be a 
"public fora" for experts. If they want one, it's much better to 
install their own mediawiki on some server to build a knowledge base on 
any subject they want to talk about.

Jean-Baptiste Soufron, Doctorant
CERSA - CNRS, Paris 2
http://soufron.free.fr

Le 6 janv. 05, à 11:02, Andre Engels a écrit :

> Daniel Mayer:
>> I respect Larry and what he did to help Wikipedia along in its first 
>> year. But
>> I will never just assume that somebody with a PhD is right since many 
>> PhDs all
>> too often are not; I've come across and know of a good many PhDs who 
>> have axes
>> to grind and who have pet theories to push.
>>
>> NPOV is a much better guarantee of accuracy than trusting a supposed 
>> expert
>> (although I do highly value feedback from field experts - I just 
>> don't take
>> their ideas as the last word).
>
> I disagree. NPOV does not in any way guarantee accuracy. At best it
> stops the most extreme cases of theory-pushing, at worst it leads to a
> ridiculous degree of relativism.
>
> And even where NPOV is concerned, an expert is much more useful than
> just someone off the street. A non-expert POV-warrior will easily blow
> away a non-expert NPOV-fighter, simply because he is the one who has
> read at least something about the subject. An expert POV-warrior will
> have a much harder time fighting an expert NPOV-fighter.
>
> I think there's a large area between "valuing feedback" and "giving
> the last word". It would be worthwhile to explore it. And it would be
> worthwhile to make a decision whom we DO give the last word.
>
>> Many in academia are used to being the gatekeepers and stewards of
>> information. Wiki opens those gates to anybody with an Internet 
>> connection. So
>> many in academia will always recoil in horror at the mere concept - 
>> that is
>> their problem, their failing, not ours.
>
> Maybe it should be our problem. Maybe we should be listening to what
> others see as problems with our methods, rather than closing our ears
> and shouting how great it is. Wikipedia is great, but that should not
> stop us from trying to find ways to make it even better.
>
> Andre Engels
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>