[Wikipedia-l] A Solution to Larry Sanger's Criticisms - Project Has Been Around For A While

Wed Jan 5 09:28:09 UTC 2005

This seems to be exactly the problem Larry Sanger talks about - We
don't care whether somebody is a renowned expert on a subject or has
just read a few lines related to a subject in the past. If they can
write it down, we consider them equal.

A second fallacy I see in this message is that it equates factual
correctness with credibility. There's more than just factual
correctness to make a good article, there is also balance. Getting
experts is not what helps here (although it helps a bit, because they
are supposed to know about the subject, and thus notice missing
portions), but we should recognize the problem as being one.

Andre Engels

> Sounds like an interesting idea, but why do we need
> 'experts' for?  Anyone can fact and reference check,
> and after facts have been verified with multiple
> sources they are then as 'credible' as credible can be
> in my thinking.
> 
> It is time to apply the Wiki philosophy to not just
> providing the content, but to verifying it with
> reference checks from multiple sources.  It worked for
> content, I am sure it will work for verification if
> the community are given the tools (tools such as
> intelligent foot/end notes, autonumbering of
> citations, etc.).