On Jan 5, 2005, at 2:28 AM, 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_%28bureaucratic%29
Certainly, a lack of expertise is a problem in managing fine details,
but it does not require an expert in aviation to add to a wikipedia
article that 'Air Force One is a plane'. The problem I think, is not
the insertion of facts by non-experts, but the use of (or omission of)
facts by POV folks to drive a given agenda.
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.
My older brother despises some wikipedia sections that are written in
his field (cultural anthropology, with specific emphasis on the paiute
people), as he is an expert in that specific area, and finds the
articles "shallow", "without depth and nuance", and "lacking in a
deeper explanation". They are written by "non-experts", and thus make
"factual and comprehension errors".
The articles are also written for *use* by non-experts.... So, I asked
my brother how many pages it would take to correct the errors, and he
pointed me towards his latest body of work, over 500 pages, and that's
just the historical *sites* of the paiute.
So, what is wikipedia? Is it *meant* to be the equivalent of an
encyclopedia, with terse explanations? Is it meant to be a vast
repository of all that is known, without omissions of fact, or
omissions of a given POV?
-Bop