Quote:Original post by Nice CoderStop stealing my passwords.
Password: *************************...
Are you a Wikipedian?
Coldacid is. He sometimes spends countless days traveling in it's hole of mysterious randomness.
Quote:Original post by OluseyiExpertise isn't simply given. Expertise is demonstrated. In my experience, if you're an expert on a topic, then you can be recognized as an expert if you support your additions, deletions, or modifications by citing your sources. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be used for publishing original research. The press and peer-reviewed journals are for publishing original research. If original research is published in a major publication, then the Wikipedia community will accept it.
Not until the Wikimedia Foundation figures out a way to give due recognition to experts in a field.
Bottomline: expertise is recognized by demonstration, not by achievement of awards.
Quote:Original post by Adraeus
...
Absolutely true. Anyone can get awards and such without having the requisite skills, because it's quite politicized. Therefore, it's no real proof. Adreaeus.rating++
I read and contribute, but I have no user name there. I always find it amusing when a page is contradicted by a page it links to.
Quote:Original post by furby100
I read and contribute, but I have no user name there.
I couldn't have said it better myself. No, wait... I could have said it with a flourish! In any case, I have no username there, but I read, and have contributed the occasional edit (nothing significant though).
Quote:Original post by uncle_rico
and I also made it so that every instance of Scott Stapp on the Creed (band) page links to the wiki article on feces.
Thank you.
Quote:Original post by AdraeusQuote:Original post by OluseyiExpertise isn't simply given. Expertise is demonstrated. In my experience, if you're an expert on a topic, then you can be recognized as an expert if you support your additions, deletions, or modifications by citing your sources. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be used for publishing original research. The press and peer-reviewed journals are for publishing original research. If original research is published in a major publication, then the Wikipedia community will accept it.
Not until the Wikimedia Foundation figures out a way to give due recognition to experts in a field.
Bottomline: expertise is recognized by demonstration, not by achievement of awards.
that pretty much supports Olyseui's point. Other than that, in any case, somebody (encyclopedia mantaining expert) have to review and check if wikipedia article is in agreement with sources. People who make articles in agreement with sources should be counted as experts and their word should have bigger "priority". Also, most experts in the field are able to cite sources well and in average better than typical editor, and they are able to see if something is wrong.
Creating an article on some subject for encyclopedia is more than just copy-paste-from-respectable-sources, as encyclopedia should present different views on problem, somehow summarize each view, and provide links to related subjects. Also, experts in the field usually are able to find more sources. If it would be copy-paste without anything added, we'd rather use google. Yes, there's no original _research_, but it does not mean that there is no original information at all.(by original information in that case i mostly mean "non-trivially derived" information.). And that information must be reviewed. It could not rely on "reviewing process in respectable sources" alone. Yes, reviewing in respectable sources partially decreases necessity of expert reviewing of wikipedia, but can not eliminate it completely. (also, what sources is respectable?)
also, for math, i use mathworld.wolfram.com , and not wikipedia. Because of review and smaller probability of mistakes.
[Edited by - Dmytry on March 30, 2005 2:18:00 PM]
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement