On 09/30/11 3:34 AM, Lodewijk wrote: > One final remark: I couldn't help but laugh a little when I read somewhere > that we are the experts, and we are making decisions for our readers - and > that these readers should have to take that whole complete story, because > what else is the use of having these experts sit together. (probably I > interpreted this with my own thoughts) And I was always thinking that > Wikipedia was about masses participating in their own way - why do we trust > people to 'ruin' an article for others, but not just for themselves? > > It's always dangerous to believe one is an expert, and worse to proclaim that view. It's even a bit arrogant. How did we get there? Mass participation and crowd sourcing are not about becoming or being experts. The content stands for itself. This is not to say that these processes are without fault, nor that at times they can't go terribly wrong. In the larger context the contents are still pretty good, and in some areas more comprehensive than what can be found elsewhere.
Wikipedia's sense of inferiority with its passion to be broadly accepted by the educational community, to be more legal than God and to be so protective of brand and reputation projects the image of a neurotic character better than Woody Allen could ever portray. Ray _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
