Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
I'm chary of experts determining what sources are reliable, as
Carcharoth suggests. There are two meanings for reliability.
Reliability in RS, I claim, depends solely on the publisher, and
reliability in this sense is about notability, and certainly not
about
2009/8/15 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com:
At 05:01 PM 8/14/2009, you wrote:
Even quite patient experts have a limited tolerance for idiocy.
For an extreme case, look at the first global warming arbitration
case, where the cranks got together to try to get one of the UK's
top
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
That's right. I proposed that we *treat* self-proclaimed experts as
having a COI, i.e., the same basic rules. A badge of honor, not a
shame. No more arguments about whether a situation is a real COI or
not. You claim to be an expert, please
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Here is the point. If an expert can't explain the subject to other
editors who are not experts, how in the world are they going to
explain it in the article?
It's quite possible to explain it to other people while being unable to explain
it to
At 01:49 AM 8/14/2009, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
An expert editor is not a source, the have to edit using sources, just
like anyone else does. Their personal opinions have and should have
nothing to do with building articles neutrally. Neutrality is not the
result of a single editor, it is the
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Ken Arromdeearrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Here is the point. If an expert can't explain the subject to other
editors who are not experts, how in the world are they going to
explain it in the article?
It's quite
In a message dated 8/14/2009 8:58:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
a...@lomaxdesign.com writes:
No, they may be expert, but biased, or not good at explaining how
they know what they know. Absolutely, the best experts can do this,
and will. But it can also be a lot of work, and many experts
2009/8/14 wjhon...@aol.com:
editing. You might find 200 online sources that state that Mary of Parma was
born
in 956, but I can show that none of these are realiable sources. My own
opinion on when she was born has nothing to do with anything, sources are what
matters.
The problem
At 02:27 PM 8/14/2009, you wrote:
I'm glad you finally agree with me :)
Everyone can edit. Experts and non-experts together.
Anyone can find a source stating that cats have retractable claws.
Supposed experts should be able to find that souce faster.
I'm not really interested in an expert
I'm chary of experts determining what sources are reliable, as
Carcharoth suggests.
Experts do not determine what sources are reliable. Consensus does.
There are two meanings for reliability. Reliability in RS, I
claim, depends solely on the publisher, and reliability in this sense
is about
Abd it seems your slant has shifted, or maybe your shift has slanted.
At any rate, perhaps you could restate your proposal, focusing on what
you think should be advisory and what proscriptive. I don't anyone is
*expecting* experts to do this or that, but that is quite different
from stating
At 08:41 PM 8/12/2009, you wrote:
*That* someone is an expert in field xyz is not a WP:COI, although some
may see it as a conflict-of-interest (in lower case). For something to
be a conflict of interest in-project doesn't just require that a person
has a strong opinion on it, or a history of deep
At 05:33 PM 8/12/2009, you wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman
Lomaxa...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
we might short-block [experts] quickly, if they do not
respond to warnings, but we would explain that we respect their
expertise and we want them to advise us.
Nothing says we
Please don't contentiously edit the article applies to all editors,
not just experts. So I can't see the need for this distinction you
think should exist. I'm still not seeing what you want here clearly.
I certainly hope you wouldn't be able to get community consensus to
treat experts as
It's striking a balance between experts who WP:OWN articles and revert
ignorant editors who don't know what they are talking about, and
requiring experts to carefully explain everything. Ideally, you would
tell both lots to edit based on reliable sources, not from their own
authority.
Carcharoth
I would agree with Carcharoth's below statement.
Every editor should edit from reliable sources. Every editor, expert
or not, must understand that they themselves are not a source which can
be cited. If a statement is tagged as needing a source, and no source
is provided, in an reasonable
At 08:32 PM 8/13/2009, you wrote:
Just the opposite.
We want experts to edit the controversial bits.
Do you really want a swarm of amateurs who have little-to-no basis in
the field being the sole people editing the most contentious portions?
That just sounds upside-down to me.
Yes, I understand.
At 08:34 PM 8/13/2009, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Please don't contentiously edit the article applies to all editors,
not just experts. So I can't see the need for this distinction you
think should exist. I'm still not seeing what you want here clearly.
I certainly hope you wouldn't be able to get
At 08:48 PM 8/13/2009, Carcharoth wrote:
It's striking a balance between experts who WP:OWN articles and revert
ignorant editors who don't know what they are talking about, and
requiring experts to carefully explain everything. Ideally, you would
tell both lots to edit based on reliable sources,
Because you keep assuming that the expert would say this is so and if
anyone asks how, they would say believe me. But that is not how we
should be functioning.
The correct functioning would be that the expert would say this is so
and someone asks how and then the expert provide a source which
At 08:18 PM 8/11/2009, you wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:36 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/11 Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com:
As someone commented on his blog, one of the problems is that the
experts in an area are likely to have been very heavily involved in
it.
Also
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomaxa...@lomaxdesign.com
wrote:
we might short-block [experts] quickly, if they do not
respond to warnings, but we would explain that we respect their
expertise and we want them to advise us.
Nothing says we respect your expertise like a
Bod Notbod wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomaxa...@lomaxdesign.com
wrote:
we might short-block [experts] quickly, if they do not
respond to warnings, but we would explain that we respect their
expertise and we want them to advise us.
Nothing says we
*That* someone is an expert in field xyz is not a WP:COI, although some
may see it as a conflict-of-interest (in lower case). For something to
be a conflict of interest in-project doesn't just require that a person
has a strong opinion on it, or a history of deep knowledge of the topic.
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2009/08/08/Fixing-XML
(Tim Bray invented XML.)
His approach was to recruit a pile of other XML experts, who he didn't
necessarily agree with.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
2009/8/11 Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com:
d. wrote:
His approach was to recruit a pile of other XML experts, who he didn't
necessarily agree with.
Another important aspect of his approach was that he recognized
(and even agreed with!) the concerns over someone like him doing
any editing.
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:36 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/11 Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com:
d. wrote:
His approach was to recruit a pile of other XML experts, who he didn't
necessarily agree with.
Another important aspect of his approach was that he recognized
(and even
27 matches
Mail list logo
