User talk:Binadot
Previous discussions:
Comment/Questions on Wiki-ethos
Hi Binadot,
I've been reading up on Wikipedia as well as browsing the various articles and realized I have a question about the general ethos. Why are the editors essentially anonymous unless they self-identify? Yes, there is some utility to having a level structure in which only logic is the determinant, but some issues are subtle enough that they could be better served by knowing whether the contents were carefuly vetted by experts or not. This is where traditional encylopedias have something like Wikipedia beat -- uniform vetting.
Of course, then there's the issue of drawing experts into the mix deliberately and some form of compensation (intellectual/academic as opposed to monetary). That is, I'd be hard-pressed to browse Wikipedia to check articles in my areas of expertise since it would be a time-consuming labor of love for which there is no credit given. And then there's the issue of self-interest which I innocently blundered into with my various linked posts. As an "expert" I felt that some mention of the "matter channel" work in the Nature paper was indicated in the SETI article and I'm certain that other experts in the field (even those with different viewpoints) would feel the same. However, any suggestion that the ideas be included is in some sense self-dealing "vanity." (I do understand the personal citation issue and would not have done it had I RTFM first :) .)
So, since I'm sure these notions have been mulled over quite a bit by folks associated with Wikipedia, I'd love to get the inside scoop. At some point, Wikipedia has to grow up and provide some indication of the veracity of articles. The old way is to close down open submissions and empower a panel of experts -- this seems stultifying and prone to certain types of censorship. Perhaps there's a different way which vets without restricting participation -- simply allowing identification of editor qualifications? Note, the use of "allowing" as opposed to "enforcing" -- you could choose to identify or not.
Cheers,
Chris 03:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
This article was previously VfD'd due to lack of notability when User:Cnmirose created it about himself. Although I agree that Wikipedia users should not edit articles about themselves, I believe Dr. Rose has a sufficient claim to notability that was not properly explored in the previous VfD. Therefore I am recreating this article. --malathion talk 05:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I am re-creating a bio stub at Gregory Wright as well. I probably should go through VFU but I think the VfD was such an obvious mistake that I believe I'm in the right to ignore the rules on this one. --malathion talk 06:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the deliberation (you and Malathion aka Ryan)
Thanks for deliberating on this one -- I'll obviously leave it alone and we'll see what the general concensus is. Please see Ryan's talk page as well (for commentary and also for a factual correction on the Christopher Rose and Gregory Wright entries (very minor -- tagline on the Nature cover)
I'd have copied you directly but I don't know how to copy more than one user at once. I've read your note regarding wiki and generally agree (and look foward to having fun with it while adding to the pool of carefully vetted knowledge when I know what I'm talking about :) ). My comment about "intellectual remuneration" was really one of general interest not my own. That is, I cannot JUSTIFY editing wiki articles, but I will do so anyway. But given the reward structure for intellectual "experts" it will be tough (I think) to attract "experts" in numbers large enough to ensure good coverage of the vast range of topics.
However, maybe an "underground" economy will develop around things like wikipedia where tenure cases will be decided on how effective a wiki-editor folks have been. In that case, there would be a large influx of academic types. Of course, that's not necessarily a good thing, especially in the "softer" sciences where there could be exactly the type of credential-bludgeoning you and Ryan mentioned).
If you take a look at my note on Ryan's page, you might also want to look at a letter I wrote to Bill Safire of the NY Times some while back on the somewhat Orwellian "LifeLog" the DoD was proposing a while back. I think it's a fascinating topic where something like Wiki might have a lot to say as an operating principle.
Cheers,
Chris 08:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
| Image deletion warning | Image:John F. Kerry.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion. |