On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 09:32, Achal Prabhala <aprabh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jokes aside :) the problem here is exemplary of what Wikipedia *doesn't* do > well, which is to find ways to assess the legitimacy of not-yet-legitimised > knowledge - whether the 'truth' is new analysis backed up by serious > scholarship (as in this case), or things that have not yet made it to > reliable print scholarship (knowledge that's circulated orally, whether in > conversations or social media). The core of the problem would appear to be > our insistence on the narrowest and smallest possible definition of > 'legitimate knowledge'. And I'd imagine that the solution is to find a > workable, sensible and cross-culturally translatable version of legitimacy > that is a lot better, bigger and more generous than what we have. Thank you, that is a well phrased description of what I wanted to write. -- byte-byte, grin _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
