On 02/22/12 6:04 PM, David Goodman wrote:
There are many subjects in which there would be multiple schools of
thought with little agreement; anyone following book reviews in the
humanities or social sciences or even some of the sciences would know
the intensity with which the highest level scholars attack the work of
those they disagree with. Appoint one as expert, and that field will
have a substantial bias. Appoint several, and they will endlessly
dispute with each other.
We shouldn't expect ourselves to be exempt from this kind of academic
discourse. We owe it to our readers to provide a clear and fair-minded
presentation of these differences.
We already have no problem with the true expert who is content to
learn our rules and work by them. We do have problems accommodating
the true expert who is right on his position but too impatient to
learn and work by our practices. We're a medium of a certain unique
sort, and what we need are the experts who can work within a communal
system of editing. Communal editing , however, does not require
rudeness: we can encourage those who could work here, but are
reluctant to engage in our schoolyard level of discourse.
We absolutely need to be severe with persistently rude admins. We need
to be able to engage fairly with would-be editors, remembering that
guidelines need to be flexible.
What we do not want is the expert of whatever quality who intends to
work by authority rather than discussion.
When it comes to processes arguing on the basis of the wording in some
policy page is working by authority. It takes advantage of the person
who has no idea where to look for the rule that fits his particular
situation.
Ray
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
