On 12 October 2010 19:33, George Herbert <[email protected]> wrote:
> We have a danger here though; peoples bona fides are hard to verify > online in general, and on Wikipedia with its culture of pseudonymity > particularly. > > An "expert" may not be who they say they are, and we may have no way > to tell either way even if they are. A large part of the system we > have is designed to mitigate not knowing the quality of the people we > have editing. > You're talking about qualifications; I'm talking about expertISE. They're not the same thing. It's the difference between making reasonable edits, and having a piece of people that says you ought to understand something. We don't care about the latter. I'm saying that the wikipedia is set up as a plaza at the admin level. This means that, in many cases, admins don't have much clue as to whether they know enough about a dispute to intervene. In some cases (most) it's very clear and they'll keep away from things they don't understand, but in some cases they may make the determination incorrectly... and bad things will tend to happen, *particularly* where there is an obvious, but wrong point of view (wrong with respect to the available sources), then the person with expertise will be labelled as a trouble maker. -- > -george william herbert > [email protected] > -- -Ian Woollard _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
