Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-03-07/Wikipedia citations
With all due respect to Sanger, you Wikipedians had better make a sober assesment of the true costs of "fixing" Wikipedia's alleged bias against the elite. Any changes along such lines will fundamentally change, and IMO, ruin the project.
The egalitarian nature of this encyclopedia definitely has a price. Some of the articles, to put it bluntly, suck, due to lack of expertise or bad writing or both.
But we must remember, Wikipedia will always be a work in progress. I've been amazed to see the headway that's been made in the Opportunity cost article, since I began to help edit it two years ago. The work done, before and since by many hands, has transformed it from a meandering discussion into what is becoming a seminal treatment of the subject. This experience has proven to me that Wiki, in all its egalitarian glory, works.
Of course, to maintain NPOV, contributions offered by experts who care to weigh in have to be given their due weight. But such experts are already free, on the discussion pages, to detail both their expertise and their reasoning. What more is it that they really need? And perhaps more to the point, what more is it that they really want?
I am, by nature, suspicious of the so-called experts, especially academic experts, who complain when forced to explain themselves terms that laymen -- such as Wikipedians devoted to NPOV -- can understand, appreciate, and go to bat for.
In my experience such complaints often mask a desire to be considered expert in fields -- especially fields involving society and politics -- that are, in reality, beyond the expert's true field of expertise. An example currently in the news, regarding Professor Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado, is discussed in a recent column by Thomas Sowell, who is himself an academic and professor.
No matter how many doctorates she or he may hold, an expert outside of her or his own field -- like it or not -- is just another layman. ô¿ô Mar. 09, 18:08:14 UTC
Possibly relevant link
[edit]Perhaps this should link to Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia, which discusses some of the relevant issues? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:02, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
Sanger's comment
[edit]As for Sanger's recent comment:
http://www.corante.com/many/archives/2005/02/28/whos_afraid_of_wikipedia.php#19594
I'd prefer he stopped commenting on Wikipedia if he's going to do it like that :) Don't leave us hanging like that, o philosopher. Tell us what solutions you've discovered with all your creative thinking. But I suppose it's the same old semi-elitist set of ideas. More restrictions, more deference to "experts", more formal processes. Something more like Nupedia.
I don't personally think any of that will be helpful. At least not at this stage in the game. But by all means, fork the project and use "creative thinking" to "blow it out of the water". Let a thousand flowers bloom.
Haukurth 01:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't say "Wikipepedia" anymore
[edit]I'm very embarrassed about it, but I've fixed it so the article online doesn't say "Wikipepedia" anymore. Please change it here accordingly. - Alonso del Arte