Quote:Original post by Rhaal
Means Only to F*** Others.

So logically, a mofo is a griefer, correct?

Quote:Original post by Adraeus
Expertise isn't simply given. Expertise is demonstrated.

How? What you've basically said is that we should confer expertise on the basis of the possession of time to participate rather than possession of knowledge. So if a professor in a field finds the time to make a contribution, a 12-year old in his parents' basement can delete it and will be in the right according to the community simply because he has more time to post rabidly to Wikipedia.

I value Wikipedia as an experiment in mob authorship theory, but the suggestion that personal investment in Wikipedia is the only valuable criterion is stupid beyond belief.

Quote: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.

If John Carmack was to post an entry on computer graphics, he wouldn't need to - provided it can be verified that it is actually him. And that's the way it should be. It has nothing to do with original research; it has to do with leveraging/tapping the resource that certain people who have demonstrated their knowledge and value outside Wikipedia, within Wikipedia.

Dogmatic anti-elitism can be just as dangerous/detrimental as institutionalized elitism.

Quote:Original post by Rhaal

Quote:Original post by uncle_rico
I added some U2 information to Bo Diddley's page, and I also made it so that every instance of Scott Stapp on the Creed (band) page links to the wiki article on feces.

So what if someone who doesn't like U2 does the same thing?

I would have a good laugh and change it back. And then I would come back here and feign anger so that I have an excuse to say "greifer" and "mofo."

Oluseyi: Do you have sufficient grounds for your claims? If so, let's see.

Quote:Original post by Adraeus
Oluseyi: Do you have sufficient grounds for your claims? If so, let's see.

There was a recent instance in which a professor in a subject had his revisions removed by a long time "Wikipedian." (What a stupid name; why not just "Wikipedia contributor"? Because it's more about an identity and community and having fun than about creating a highly veracious resource.) I can't locate the article which mentioned it, which irritates me.

Do you have sufficient grounds for your counter-claims? A protracted observation of Wikipedia's current structure seems to bear out my analysis - there is no mechanism in place to accredit persons who have demonstrated value in domains outside of Wikipedia. Do you have another clever retort for that, or will you investigate the claim?

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. This is simply my reasoning as to why I don't consider Wikipedia participation a useful employment of my time and energies. You're free to do whatever you want.

Quote:Original post by Oluseyi
There was a recent instance in which a professor in a subject had his revisions removed by a long time "Wikipedian." (What a stupid name; why not just "Wikipedia contributor"? Because it's more about an identity and community and having fun than about creating a highly veracious resource.) I can't locate the article which mentioned it, which irritates me.

What was the whole story? Perhaps the professor's edits were fallacious, POV, poor, nonfactual, irrelevant, inconsistent with available academically credible resources, and/or simply incorrect?

Quote:Do you have sufficient grounds for your counter-claims? A protracted observation of Wikipedia's current structure seems to bear out my analysis - there is no mechanism in place to accredit persons who have demonstrated value in domains outside of Wikipedia. Do you have another clever retort for that, or will you investigate the claim?

There is a mechanism in place to accredit persons who have demonstrated value outside Wikipedia. This mechanism is inherent to formal writing standards: citation.

In case you're not aware, Larry Sanger is an ex-Wikipedia insider who claims he co-founded Wikipedia with Jimmy Wales. Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, responded to Larry Sanger's nonfactual critique here. Wikipedia is becoming more successful with each contribution to its encyclopedia. Larry Sanger does not have a case.

By the way, is anyone surprised that Wikipedia works so well? I mean, in my experience 99% of the internet community is garbage (maybe that's because I post on the Vestibule) and I would expect this to be reflected on Wikipedia. But instead, most of the articles seem to be surprisingly well-written.

My feces edit was removed within just a few days, for example.

Quote:Original post by Adraeus
What was the whole story? Perhaps the professor's edits were fallacious, POV, poor, nonfactual, irrelevant, inconsistent with available academically credible resources, and/or simply incorrect?

Or perhaps it was accurate, broadly accepted, sophisticated, well-researched, topical, congruent with current thinking but simply beyond the ken of the individual who revoked it? Who knows? The point is that a specialist in a field is far more likely to be exposed to the latest thinking within his domain, which may invalidate previous material or contradict "common sense." Does that make it inaccurate, or lacking value?

A balance needs to be struck, but when even peripheral characters like yourself assume the defensive, I suppose it's safe for me to assume that the Wikipedia "anti-elitism" is firmly in place and will not be dislodged.

I'm sure you're aware that the academic tradition is to engage dissenting opinion in discourse - sometimes very heated and provincial and petty discourse, but discourse nevertheless - examining its case for merit rather than simply attempting to discredit (though, as we all know, some academicians have stooped to the latter). If Wikipedia is not going to be open to the academic tradition of challenge and review, particularly of its own practices, then its larger worth as a bibliographic reference has to be called into question.

Quote:There is a mechanism in place to accredit persons who have demonstrated value outside Wikipedia. This mechanism is inherent to formal writing standards: citation.

Citations of works do not imbue Wikipedia user profiles with social currency. Is there some sort of logical disconnect you can't traverse? If Richard Dyer were to sign up to Wikipedia as Richard.Dyer, how would his profile be accorded the necessary recognition within the Wikipedia participant community as a noted cinema studies and film theorist?

You're evading my question.

Quote:In case you're not aware, Larry Sanger is an ex-Wikipedia insider who claims he co-founded Wikipedia with Jimmy Wales. Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, responded to Larry Sanger's nonfactual critique here.

I was aware, but I don't care.

Quote:Wikipedia is becoming more successful with each contribution to its encyclopedia. Larry Sanger does not have a case.

Depends on what your metric of success is. The level of knowledge across Wikipedia is inconsistent. It's very strong in the computer sciences, largely because it was built and is loved by geeks, but it's incredibly weak in something as common as cinema arts. Given that that's my discipline, I find Wikipedia much less useful.

Wikipedia has the makings of a highly successful, universally applicable, constantly growing global encyclopedia, but "spontaneous contribution," just as in open source, can go only so far. In essence, Wikipedia needs to cathederalize to a certain extent, and it needs to popularize the fact that it has to attract more participants outside the core domain.

Because of the low amount of seed content in Wikipedia for my discipline, the barriers to contribution are high as the rewards are low. It's much more cost effective for me to contribute to IMDB, for example, which I frequent and engage in discussions on from time to time.

In summary, I am not attacking Wikipedia, so put your haunches down. I am asking a series of questions and challenging a series of observed behaviors with a view to improving Wikipedia, justifying the investment of time and effort of a much larger number of people than current. If that bothers you, then maybe the problem is you and people like you and your irrational protectiveness of Wikipedia even more so than the Wikipedia system. The technology and social network effects of Wikipedia aren't any more complex than the Portland Pattern Repository, so get over yourselves.