Marc Riddell wrote:
There seems to be a great concern about having verifiable material Œsources¹
in Wikipedia that can be checked; why not place at least as much importance
on the Œsources¹ (the editors) of the very material that is included? We
want to be able to check the reliability of the substance of the text, but
seem to place little importance on being able to check on who entered it in
the first place.
If the material is taken from an authoritative published source, why
does it matter who typed it in? Is "the leaves are 20-30 cm long" more
correct if it's personally typed in by the professional botanist, than
by the high-school student who works from the botanist's book and lists
it as a source?
If I want to question the substance of an Article in
Wikipedia, I should be
able to go to an editor¹s personal information page and get a sense that
they have the expertise to be editing the material, and a page where I can
contact them with questions. Every, reputable reference work has this.
"Get a sense"? So what you're saying is you want WP's
reputation to hang
on *your* intuition-based assessment of the editors' personal details?
I'm an expert in some areas that I edit and an amateur in others, and as
an expert it's hugely tempting to write into articles "this is true
because *I* said so". But then how does someone else check that? I don't
want to be answering the phone all day, and when I die, or more likely
sooner, completely forget why I made the statement, what then? The whole
approach of relying on "who you know" is really sloppy scholarship
that's unfortunately common today, and I hope that WP will eventually
come to be seen as exemplifying a stricter standard based on
publications rather than personalities.
Stan