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