On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:06 PM, George Herbert <[email protected]> wrote:
> Any policy - or policy change - we can think of will have unforseen > consequences. I agree with you. But we can't let this paralyze us in responding to a problem that is no longer "unforeseen," but that in fact has occurred. At minimum, the Haymarket article ought to edited to accommodate a well-documented minority scholarly analysis -- surely we agree about that. > Is it possible that you being Mike Godwin is leading to a selection > bias, where a large fraction of the actual experts with actual > problems with process who did anything about it came to or through you > on their way to solving or reporting the problem? It's entirely possible. But it happens with enough frequency for me to be able to articulate a credible hypothesis that this is happening too often. Certainly there's no "selection bias" problem associated with the sheer fact of the Chronicle of Higher Education article itself -- its existence is something that nobody here disputes, regardless of how we interpret it. And I think there is a second hypothesis that is also credible, which is that the Chronicle article very likely hurts Wikipedia reputationally. > It seems that there are a large surplus of the latter, and only a few > of the former, statistically. Assuming that's accurate, that should > inform the policy discussion. Certainly. --Mike _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
