On 11 September 2012 10:11, Kathleen McCook <[email protected]> wrote:
> The link is to the NPR article and the comment below is worth reviewing. > How can this perception typical among the NPR commentators be over-turned? > > " Boe D (Dajoe) wrote: > "People: If you are knowledgable enough to find a fault in Wikipedia--Go > fix it!" > > Boe, are you kidding? it's because of the hubris and tenacity of the > ignorant that we cannot fix it. we have only finite energy and time, and > the self-appointed "editors" who elect among themselves the > "administrators" (who wield the real power), will just revert any fix that > doesn't fit with their POV. > > That's kind of not the case. An admin who reverts well-referenced edits as a POV pusher is riding for a fall. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-09-10/In_the_media has a sane discussion of what actually did go on in the Roth business. You can get this other kind of explanation any day of the week from the troll boards, naturally. But the agenda there is to make WP unmanageable on any terms. The Roth situation was WP between a rock (celeb culture with its ohmigod you dissed X) and a hard place (academic credibility requires that, yes, you do require verifiable additions and don't accept argument from authority). It would tend to illustrate that celeb power can potentially be deployed against serious discourse. Countervailing "admin power" is always a questionable analysis. Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
