Who here is as in love with Wikipedia as me? It's amazing, that's how I found this site!
>People can be harmed if bad information is used to make policy decisions or for science purposes.
And I agree whole-heartedly. Who the heck would do tha?
> Partially by the way you wrote, and partially because I was wondering if you had any prejudices that were acting up.
I never once asked you if you belong to some specific generalized group, you know.
> You can write about all that stuff, though. Including singing and car repair.
But just because you can sing, does not mean you can write about singing. A practical skill is not the same as the ability to reduce the same skill into words and put it on paper. That was my point. Just because you can sing, does not mean you are an expert on musical theory.
> Not necessarily experts, but they must be pretty sure about what it is they do write, and hold some kind of interest in it.
Why must they? I refer you to the IgNobel prize winning paper, Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments:
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Funny!
> I think the analogy of the airplane is accurate.
No, it is not, for the simple reason that anybody but a highly trained engineer or an amateur with years of self-study and practice does not have the first clue how to even use the tools required to build an airplane. Nor do they have the understanding of materials science, aerodynamics, propulsion, et cetera, et cetera to even begin making something that could roll even a meter down the runway without falling apart.
It doesn't matter how many people you collect and try to squeeze nuggets of wisdom out of - you can't find this knowledge bit by bit. It has to be learned as a whole.
>>124
Good point.
Althought one person could write a whole wiki article by himself, not even a high trained engineer would know how to make a plane by himself.
Because it may be true in policy but sure as hell isn't in practice?
>>127, okay, fine, but then it's Wikipedia's execution you have a problem with, not the concept. I believe this discussion is misdirected.
You're right, that policy is often ignored, but not always. In my experience, for articles on uncontroversial math and science, it tends to be followed pretty well usually.
That policy doesn't get rid of bad writing or misunderstanding the sources.
However, >>128, you normally don't need to be an expert to fix those problems. You just need to be able to read and write.
I assume you are talking to me. If you are, then no, you are wrong. Obviously to understand the sources, you have to be knowledgable in the field in question, if the topic is anything more than the absolute basics. Futhermore, with "bad writing" I don't just mean grammar and spelling errors, I mean writing that is unclear, misleading, or just otherwise unhelpful. To write clearly and easily understood on a topic, you need to understand that topic very well.
That's the exact point of the airplane analogy. The point is not just anyone can build an airplane. It takes specific knowledge of physics and mechanics, thrust/weight ratios, engines, etc. It does take an expert to build airplanes, bridges, and skyscrapers.
You also have to have a pretty thorough understanding of physics to explain much beyond the very basics. Probably also true of Chemistry for example. It would take an expert to explain some chemical reactions and processes, like the Krebs Cycle. Leaving it to enthusiastic amatuers means that it's highly likely that they'll misunderstand the material completely, if not misrepresent the material because they believe in some pet theory.
Now, even with the WPedia policy of only standing by sourced material, there is the potential for misunderstanding it. Most of the time, they paraphrase the articles. Trouble is that frankly if you don't have the background to understand the material in the first place, your paraphrase isn't going to be accurate.
It's not like wikipedia is lying to your face and if it would lie, you would probably know it.
Wikipedia articles may be badly written with little info on stuff, but that doesn't make it an awfull place to search for information. I have used it forever and i never got any problems with using it.