[WikiEN-l] Respected users who tell us what is what (was: Strawman attacks on recent proposals)

Tue Jun 7 13:34:37 UTC 2005

Well, as Gomer Pyle would say:

* "Surprise, surprise, surprise"

Isn't this *precisely* what Larry Sanger was calling for? And wasn't
this the *chief* criticism he made about Wikipedia in his famous screed?

That we need *some* sort of reliable group of experts ("vetted panels of
respected users who have demonstrated knowledge in certain areas" as Mav
put it) to give us a reliable clue as to what is really so.

Okay, maybe I shouldn't be so shrill and I-told-you-so-ish about this;
sorry, I'll get off my high horse now.

Taking the course Mav suggests could either help us a lot or hurt us
terribly. If we choose wise (and unbiased!) panels, we'll be able to add
the adjective "reliable" (or "authoritative") to our main page's slogan.
If we simly hold an election, chances are that voters will (deliberately
or not) choose a panel which MERELY REFLECTS THEIR PREJUDICES AND
BIASES.

It ultimately will come down to a question of:

* Who is worthy of our trust?
* How do we identify and attract such people?
* How can we prove to others that they merit our trust?

This task might be too hard for us, with our current organization. Now
don't get me wrong: I really like the people on the arbcom, and I'm not
wangling for a seat on it. I'm just saying that it's very difficult for
non-experts to judge the qualifications of experts.

To distinguish between:

A. the scrupulously honest and self-sacrificial devotees of truth (of
"what is") who are as M. Scott Peck wrote, "dedicated to reality at all
costs"; and,

B. people who will assert that something is true (1) out of ignorant
error or (2) for an ulterior motive

...to make that distinction is more than we bargained for. 

Jimbo and Larry set up the NPOV idea out of what I regard as a kind of
philosophical and practical desperation: I realization that the only way
a really huge wiki could operate successfully was to DUCK all issues of
determining right and wrong, true and false, good and bad - and simply
"describe fairly each point of view". Thus the term Neutral Point Of
View means "not endorsing or rejecting ANY point of view".

It may be that Wikipedia has served its purpose: that it has reached the
end of its tether. If so, we must look to others to build upon its
foundation and continue onward.

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Mayer [mailto:maveric149 at yahoo.com] 
> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 11:42 PM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Strawman attacks on recent proposals
> 
> 
> --- Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Folks, we still have a major problem. There are many people 
> here who 
> > unfortunately refuse to cite sources, engage in original research, 
> > write things that are just false and bizarre.
> 
> And the ArbCom is already charged with enforcing all 
> Wikipedia policies, including those that are about content 
> (such as NPOV, NOR, and Verifiability). We have in fact ruled 
> in this area several times before but have been usually 
> limited to cases that are fairly obvious. 
> 
> Spotting subtle POV, original research, or fringe ideas 
> masquerading as more mainstream than they are takes a fair 
> amount of pre-existing knowledge in the relevant subject 
> area. This is something that the current ArbCom could never have. 
> 
> Thus my idea of having vetted panels of respected users who 
> have demonstrated knowledge in certain areas that the ArbCom 
> could call upon to help it distinguish what is what. 
> 
> See 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitratio
n/RFC#Alternate_solution_.239_by_mav._Content_subcommittee

-- mav

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 