[Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

Mon Sep 20 19:28:41 UTC 2010

Will, I suspect the problem may often have to do with due weight. To judge due weight, you need to have an overview of the literature, not a single source that states what you want to add to the article.

It is the same problem in climate change articles, where editors that have no overview of the scientific literature may insist that the Telegraph blog they have just read must be prominently featured. 

--- On Mon, 20/9/10, WJhonson at aol.com <WJhonson at aol.com> wrote:

> From: WJhonson at aol.com <WJhonson at aol.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
> To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Monday, 20 September, 2010, 20:14
> In a message dated 9/20/2010 12:02:43
> PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
> peter.damian at btinternet.com
> writes:
> 
> 
> > In my experience 
> > the problem of humanities in Wikipedia is that the
> methods and training of 
> > 
> > the 'experts' is so fundamentally different from that
> of 'Wikipedians' 
> > (who 
> > by and large have no training at all) that disputes
> nearly always turn 
> > ugly. >>
> > 
> 
> You are again stating the problem as expert vs pedestrian
> (untrained at 
> least).
> 
> However I again submit that in Wikipedia, you are not an
> "expert" because 
> you have a credential, you are an expert because you behave
> like an expert.  
> When challenged to provide a source, you cite your source
> and other readers 
> find, that it does actually state what you claim it
> states.
> 
> However it seems to me that you'd perhaps like experts to
> be able to make 
> unchallengeable claims without sources.
> 
> If I'm wrong in that last sentence, then tell me why being
> an expert is any 
> different than being any editor at all.
> 
> What is the actual procedure by which, when an expert
> edits, we see 
> something different than when anyone edits.
> 
> I can read a book on the History of the Fourth Crusade, and
> adds quotes to 
> our articles on the persons and events, just as well as an
> expert in that 
> specific field.
> 
> The problem comes, imho, when "experts" add claims that are
> unsourced, and 
> when challenged on them, get uppity about it.
> 
> The issue is not uncited claims, or challenged
> claims.  All of our articles 
> have uncited claims and many have challenged and
> yet-unfulfilled claims.  
> The issue is how you are proposing these should be treated
> differently if the 
> claim comes from an "expert" versus a "non-expert", isn't
> it?
> 
> So address that.
> 
> Will Johnson
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 