In a message dated 10/2/2010 10:04:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time, peter.dam...@btinternet.com writes:
> You missed the point again. Sarah is not saying that the *readers* need > to > understand the basics. She is saying that the problem is with *editors*. > > > And you've missed the point. The entire thrust of our mission is to make readers into editors. That is the point of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You want to maintain the position of academics as a lofty top-level floating above the rest of society and we want to destroy it to level the field :) Haven't you ever read Atlas Shrugged! But seriously. If readers *can* understand the article, then so can editors. Your problem, is not that people can't *understand* it, it's that they don't *agree* with you. Fine. Yesterday, I starting fact-tagging an article that had a lot of odd claims in it. My fellow editor went into a fit of pique and removed most of the article simply because he didn't want to have to find citations for his claims. Good. We do not want, read that again please, we DO NOT WANT, those academics who refuse to cite their claims. We don't want them. :) You're not an expert here because you *know*, you're an expert because you can support your claims. You don't want that. You want to just be an expert because you know without the need to prove it. These articles aren't a private playground for a few highbrows, this is a brand-new medium never before encountered. One in which even the most basic assumptions can be challenged, and are, and can be removed by anyone, any member of the public whatsoever, who feels the citations aren't firm or clear, and those who can't put up with that sort of mosh pit, are left in the dust. W _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l