4 ms·
> while you must source things, the quality of the source is not checked. So take an obscure book, obviously not in English and claim your fact comes from it A
by The_Colonel 3y ago
> while you must source things, the quality of the source is not checked. So take an obscure book, obviously not in English and claim your fact comes from it
Agreed, this is a problem esp. on smaller Wikipedias.
> The no credentials are accepted policy makes sure the experts stay away in droves.
Perhaps partially true, but without this policy there would be basically no Wikipedia. There are projects requiring credentials like Citizendium where experts don't have to fear being bothered by neckbeards, but they're basically dead.
- chx 3y agoYou need to apply this sensibly: if a subject matter expect challenges a source that needs to carry more weight than a rando dragging any random crap into wikipedia. Have a process etc. I am not asking for experts to be given free reign -- what they add should be sourced etc but they need to be able to apply checks.
- The_Colonel 3y agoI worked on one of the non-english Wikipedias for a couple of years, and it kinda worked like that. There were subject-matter experts (often people who had their own Wikipedia pages for their scientific work) and their opinions carried (informally) higher weight than those of randos. Wikipedia isn't completely anonymous in the sense that people contributing to a similar area know each other (not personally) and will often defer to a person with clearly higher qualifications. That doesn't mean the system is perfect and there are cases where it doesn't work out well. But it's not really true that on Wikipedia, an opinion of a rando is taken as equal of an established authority in the field.