[WikiEN-l] Bad And Wrong Policy/Procedure/Guideline Hitlist

Sun Nov 5 01:27:20 UTC 2006

On 05/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 00:25:05 +0000, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
> wrote:

> >> In other words, there was consensus to delete, a strong majority to
> >> endorse deletion, but you "know better".  Maybe you do, but doesn't it
> >> strike you as just the *teensiest* bit arrogant?

> >It may be worth pointing out that Phil is an academic expert in the
> >area in question, so his opinion is actually worth more on the
> >particular subject.

> There are those who consider "academic expert on webcomix" to be an
> oxymoron.  There are also others who claim expertise in DRV right now
> who support deletion.

To be specific, Dragonfiend is claiming expertise but singularly
failing to substantiate said claim when asked directly several times;
in the meantime conducting increasingly shrill personal attacks on
Phil.

> We have an ongoing RFAR on pseudoscience where an expert has been
> pushing his novel theories.  How am I supposed to ell if Phil is using
> a novel interpretation of what is significant?  Secondary sources, not
> "I know better".  And actually I trust Phil's judgment, just as I
> trust Tony Sidaway's, but Tony usually brings better arguments than "I
> know better".

Well, yes. But does an expert count more than five people who know
nothing about a field? I submit it does. Wikipedia is supposed to
respect experts, after all, not say "fuck off, you were outvoted by
us."

- d.