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

Thu Jan 6 18:41:20 UTC 2005

--- Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> And even where NPOV is concerned, an expert is much more useful than
> just someone off the street. A non-expert POV-warrior will easily blow
> away a non-expert NPOV-fighter, simply because he is the one who has
> read at least something about the subject. An expert POV-warrior will
> have a much harder time fighting an expert NPOV-fighter.

And that is why we have a dispute resolution process. RfC is used to expose a
conflict to a wider audience. That increases the chance that other NPOV-minded
and at least semi-knowledgeable people get to voice their view and add their
contribution. If that gets the attention of an expert in the field, then all
the better (so long as that person adheres to NPOV). And you incorrectly assume
that the non-expert POV warrior knows more than the non-expert NPOV-minded
person or group (if the later are really in the right, then they will garner
more support in the end and win). 

> I think there's a large area between "valuing feedback" and "giving
> the last word". It would be worthwhile to explore it. And it would be
> worthwhile to make a decision whom we DO give the last word.

We should not show special deference to any one person or group of persons.
That is a recipe for disaster since credentials are easy enough to fake and are
often used as weapons by POV-pushing experts (there are many and egos are HUGE
in academia) against non-experts. 

That said, I do think that we should encourage greater participation by experts
in Wikipedia. We could do this through the 1.0 selection process; experts would
be needed on any subject-area selection board along with non-expert subject
area enthusiasts (both sub-groups would have *equal* power in version
selection). 

> Maybe it should be our problem. Maybe we should be listening to what
> others see as problems with our methods, rather than closing our ears
> and shouting how great it is. Wikipedia is great, but that should not
> stop us from trying to find ways to make it even better.

What we need to focus on is the *product* - methods are a means to an end. Some
in academia don't like our methods since it knocks them out of their ivory
towers, but the real question is; "how good is the actual product (not just the
perception of it)." 

For a four year old encyclopedia, I'd say that our product is exemplary (and at
least the German version has been shown to be so in an independent study). But
we can and should do more (Wikipedia 1.0/versioning) and not just rest on our
laurels. 

I'm all for continued improvement, I'm not for killing the goose that laid the
golden egg. 

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail