RE (2): [WikiEN-l] A future for Nupedia?

Sat Sep 11 15:05:26 UTC 2004

On 11 Sep 2004, at 00:47, wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org wrote:
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
>
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/ 
>> 030521.html
>
> But this does nothing to address the criticism that our content is not  
> vetted
> by experts. I agree that appeal to authority is largely a logical  
> fallacy, but
> it nonetheless is followed like a religion by a great many people (who  
> then
> blindly trust what the experts say). If we want to have them read our  
> content,
> then we will have to give them that bit of comfort.
>
> -- mav

Seriously now, if our future review club (or whatever we decide upon)  
does a markedly better job at reviewing articles, then people ''will''  
learn that they ''can'' respect such an institution, even without  
"expertism" (ie. without giving anybody's opinion more weight by merit  
of the speaker's prior achievement, title, whatever). Good  
contributions from "experts" will prevail ''anyway'', without us  
''treating'' anybody as an "expert", as "better than the rest of us" or  
as a "first class Wikipedian". In the area of article review as well,  
sound views will prevail by their own merit -- regardless of who voiced  
them.

Of course we will win over "experts" (and thus, those who follow them)  
as well. (Because "experts" more often than not excel at critical  
reading and if we do a good job, an increasing number of "experts" will  
duly tell the doubters that we're actually quite good.) BUT we should  
NOT provide a soapbox for any kind of such academic title, medal or  
beauty contests ''within'' the Wikipedia. "We hold these truths to be  
self-evident, that all men are created equal..." The rest is staying  
the course and weathering some rough waves of criticism every once in a  
while.

-- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]]
     www.ropersonline.com