Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-05-23/In the news

Expertise
Just a note on the topic of Wikipedia and expertise, a long time ago I did an impromptu debate on Nick Carr's blog about it (versus a Wikipedia advocate). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Maria Bustillos here with thanks for your comments on my recent piece at The Awl. I don't mean to devalue anyone who has studied a subject in great detail and has knowledge to share, but to draw attention to the difference between a model of learning that encourages the weighing of opposing views, and one that requires a single "answer" to any given question. The same kind of misunderstanding evidently occurred between Messrs. Montgomery and Finkelstein in the (excellent) dialogue referenced in the above comment (for which thank you, Mr. Finkelstein.) Perhaps a distinction can be made between "experts" and "authorities"?68.185.76.235 (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * But Wikipedia worships the idea that there is a single "answer" overall. That's a key part of its marketing, the so-called Neutral Point Of View. The idea of multiple independent answers is derided, the jargon term for that is "POV forks", which are to be avoided at all costs. One can hear the dismissal in the language, if something is not neutral (the single "answer" to any given question), but a (gasp!) point of view . The meaning of "neutral" there is subject to confusion, in thinking it means something like accepting different views of knowledge, where it really means the exact opposite, rejecting all views which are not part of the standard construction of knowledge by credentialed experts. This doesn't mean that standard experts agree everywhere on everything - that's an oversimplification of knowledge. And so Wikipedia respects differing views within that framework. But not outside it. It's a bit like journalistic "objectivity". But it's not a different model of learning at all. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've always thought of Neutral Point Of View as an invitation to draw a landscape on the subject in question. All features within the field of view are present but some are in the foreground and some in the background. It would be a strange landscape that gave equal prominence to all features. The biggest consensual views get the most detail and the lesser ones a sketch. Lumos3 (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The question here isn't one of "credentialed experts" but of verifiability, as Paul Montgomery pointed out. This means tracing the path of an idea, as opposed to the taking of one person's word on a given question. I doubt my own eloquence will succeed in persuading you that this is manifestly a "different model of learning" where Mr. Montgomery's eloquence failed. I'm not trying to say "anyone's an expert now!" though. I'm saying something more like, when we are invited behind the curtain of the all-powerful Oz, the dangers of trusting "authority" will no longer threaten us so powerfully. (I'm reminded of the Russian proverb that Julian Barnes used as the epigraph for his novel Talking it Over: "He lies like an eyewitness.")68.185.76.235 (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going down the same path as before, but - you are supposed to take the word from on-high on a given question, that's everything from "reliable sources" to "verifiability, not truth". In fact, you are supposed to be so beholden to authority as to defer to it even when you know differently (that's e.g. "original research", and usually said with a dismissive tone). The arguments are about settling conflicting claims with references to the correct authority (reliable source), which is hardly revolutionary - would you say theology (literally) is a "different model of learning" because since God is unclear, everything is necessarily interpretation? You also ignore all the hucksterism pushing trusting the "hive mind". -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Boy, I get to be the first to respond to his essay with, "Larry Sanger isn't all that either"? -- llywrch (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And that comment isn't all that either 1/2 :-) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mebbe. But Sanger knows better than to make comments that can be just as easily turned on him. Citizendium is a very large glass house; he would do well not to throw stones. -- llywrch (talk) 05:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * When we discuss "causes" specifically of conditions for which the cause is not know we are discussing theories and we try to weight them proportional to the weight they receive in the literature. On Wikipedia we do anything but "provide the one right answer". Context is given. History is given. And if it isn't it should be... --24.66.7.103 (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In some topics and articles, the editors do work together well to provide all significant views as presented in "reliable" sources. In other topics, however, especially some of the science and political history articles, groups of activist editors prevent that from happening.  In the latter situation, in most cases Wikipedia's administration has shown itself unable or unwilling to effectively resolve the problem.  Unfortunately, for the most part, Wikipedia's readers have to figure out on their own which is the case for any particular article. Cla68 (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, the community and the ArbCom have acted against activist editors on numerous occasions with some consistency. It's an ongoing problem, but not one that's insoluble.   Will Beback    talk    10:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Fancy words
Epistemic? Spare me! With jaw dropped, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with epistemic? "Of or relating to knowledge or cognition". I could have used doxastic if I really wanted to confuse non-philosophers. Anyway, sorry for the confusion. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Gardner on gender gap
I think Gardner hit the nail on the head right in her second reply when she noted that "Wikipedia is a more critical environment — debate is a bit rough-and-tumble"; similarly, it's very true that the technical barriers to contribution are still far too high. Overcoming these issues would benefit everyone, too, no matter their gender, so I hope progress will be made there. -- Schneelocke (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)