[WikiEN-l] A future for Nupedia?

Fri Sep 10 12:25:47 UTC 2004

On 10 Sep 2004, at 10:35, wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org wrote:

> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:20:54 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] A future for Nupedia?
>
> --- Patrick Aiden Hunt <skyler1534 at comcast.net> wrote:
>> I know this may seem to some to be a silly question, but why do you 
>> need
>> someone with academic credentials reviewing articles? Any normal
>> encyclopedia simply uses a basic bibliography and the information in 
>> the
>> article is from books that are written by experts who have academic
>> credentials already recognized. If we had people simply cite sources 
>> for
>> information, then it seems like we would have to worry much less about
>> the reviewers' credentials.
>
> Pragmatic; many people will not trust and in fact warn people against 
> using our
> content otherwise. Think of it as building a bridge to the old way of
> publishing and to the drones who think that is the only way content 
> can be
> trusted.

If we'd insist on, or automatically give preference to, academic 
credentials/individuals at any stage and in any way, then we'd yield 
to, and become part of, the self-fulfilling prophecy that only academic 
folks can "get it right".

Please understand that I'm not against academics participating in our 
review processes (just as everybody else). But I'm very much against 
reverting the Wikipedia into just another place where "academically 
accredited" equals "holier than thou". I fervently favour the notion of 
"one man, one vote" (with apologies to non-sexist language advocates). 
Just because most people in the world today allow many of their equally 
good ideas to be overruled by <awe>academic experts</awe>, doesn't make 
it the right thing to do. Yes, true, most academics are, on average, 
probably better qualified than non-academics. But under the traditional 
system A LOT of brilliant brilliant input is lost, because people are 
simply put off by never having a chance of working as equals (unless 
they ''become'' academics as well) and people are put off by that, if 
not even turned away at the door for failing to meet "minimum 
standards".

I believe. I believe that every human is unique. I believe that every 
human has unique contributions to make to human knowledge. I believe 
that in an ideal world there would be a system of joint knowledge 
aggregation that could embrace everybody's contribution and then 
magically combine these contributions (diverse and imperfect, all) into 
something elaborate and serene that's more than the sum of its parts. I 
believe that Wikipedia currently ''IS'' that dream. It allows just that 
to happen. Not easily, not automatically, not without dispute, but it 
does happen. It would pain me if our future implementations of our 
review processes would end that dream. Because taking this "pragmatic" 
step is not a bridge to the past. It's ''becoming'' the bad old days 
again. And I for one, would feel betrayed for all the contributions I 
made. The Wikipedia you're proposing is not the Wikipedia I submitted 
my work to.

-- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]]
     www.ropersonline.com

PS: This is NOT against having a better review system -- I ''DO'' want 
just that. I again refer to my previous post:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030496.html

Again, I hold that the "review club" should be very open to all comers, 
just as the "edit club". We may choose a more disciplined approach 
within the "review club" and be more harsh about disturbances, but we 
absolutely should not ask for (and entrants should not mention their) 
academic qualifications at the doorstep. Their ''actual writing'' 
should be their sole guarantor. With reference to this post:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030499.html
If renowned academic Alice cannot conclusively prove and defend her 
view of things and layman Bob can, then we should follow Bob. We should 
NOT believe something is right just because "the right people" say it. 
That's a reverse ad-hominem. Go read the [[ad hominem]] article. Do it 
now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem