In a message dated 8/14/2009 8:58:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
> No, they may be expert, but biased, or not good at explaining how > they know what they know. Absolutely, the best experts can do this, > and will. But it can also be a lot of work, and many experts won't > want to put in that work, because, after all, they know the fact so > well. So we get the best results with interaction between experts and > non-experts.>> --------------------- I'm glad you finally agree with me :) Everyone can edit. Experts and non-experts together. Anyone can find a source stating that "cats have retractable claws". Supposed experts should be able to find that souce faster. I'm not really interested in an expert *explaining* anything to me. I'm interested in that expert finding the souces that *back up* their words with published third-party authorities. If they can't do that function, then I agree that they should not be editing. You might find 200 online sources that state that Mary of Parma was born in 956, but I can show that none of these are realiable sources. My own opinion on when she was born has nothing to do with anything, sources are what matters. Will Johnson _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
