K. Peachey wrote: > Just a Heads Up slashdot has new article about wikipedia up and it's > use of experts - "The Role of Experts In Wikipedia" > http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/16/0210251 > >Sanger says the main reason that Wikipedia's articles are as good as they are is that they are edited by knowledgeable people to whom deference is paid, although voluntarily, but that some articles suffer precisely because there are so many aggressive people who 'guard' articles and drive off others (PDF), including people more expert than they are.
The good articles are good basically because smart people take the trouble to research them and write them to a decent standard. The article on topic X is good, when it is, not usually because A, an expert on X, has filled it with A's expert knowledge, but because B and C and maybe others have looked at some literature on the topic and done a decent job of constructing a precis for the general reader. I would make an exception for some areas (e.g. mathematics, medicine) where an expert is going to have a view that is 1000% clearer than someone coming in from outside. The bit about "deference" shows a fixation on the more combative aspects of WP. Most articles aren't that contentious. >'Without granting experts any authority to overrule such people, there is no reason to think that Wikipedia'a articles are on a vector toward continual improvement,' writes Sanger. No reason for Sanger to think that, since he continually misses the point of the wiki. Most articles, numerically speaking, just wait until someone who cares comes along and upgrades them. >Wikipedia's success cannot be explained by its radical egalitarianism or its rejection of expert involvement, but instead by its freedom, openness, and bottom-up management and there is no doubt that many experts would, if left to their own devices, dismantle the openness that drives the success of Wikipedia. Yeah, we know about such experts, but they are not experts _on Wikipedia_! How about a little respect for the expertise of people who spend time doing it, rather than talking about it? >'But the failure to take seriously the suggestion of any role of experts can only be considered a failure of imagination,' writes Sanger. 'One need only ask what an open, bottom-up system with a role for expert decision-making would be like.' In other words, despite all appearances, CZ is superior to WP. Well, I think we saw where this was going a little earlier. The brass neck involved in implying that WP is "unimaginative", which is largely wrong, rather than too utopian, which is certainly an arguable point, is breath-taking. A propos FR, or other such things, there has been this constant debate in which the "pure wiki" model is held up against what amount to pragmatic suggestions for change in aid of the encyclopedic mission. This discussion goes on all the time. Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
