On 11 Sep 2004, at 00:47, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com>
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