Wikipedia talk:Anti-elitism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Larry Sanger wrote:

This lack of respect for expertise explains the first problem, because if the project participants had greater respect for expertise, they would have long since invited a board of academics and researchers to manage a culled version of Wikipedia (one that, I think, would not directly affect the way the main project is run). But because project participants have such a horror of the traditional deference to expertise, this sort of proposal has never been taken very seriously by most Wikipedians leading the project now. [1]

Sanger appears to argue that less tolerance would foster more openness:

To attact and retain the participation of experts, there would have to be little patience for those who do not understand or agree with Wikipedia's mission, or even for those pretentious mediocrities who are not able to work with others constructively and recognize when there are holes in their knowledge (collectively, probably the most disruptive group of all). A less tolerant attitude toward disruption would make the project more polite, welcoming, and indeed open to the vast majority of intelligent, well-meaning people on the Internet. [ibid]
The project can both prize and praise its most knowledgeable contributors, and permit contribution by persons with no credentials whatsoever. [ibid]

Sanger offers a solution:

One thing that Wikipedia could do now, although I doubt that it is possible in the current atmosphere and with the current management, is to adopt an official policy of respect of and deference to expertise. [ibid]

And another solution:

I believe it is only a matter of time before some organization--only possibly Wikipedia's managing nonprofit, Wikimedia--takes advantage of the fact that Wikipedia contents are open content, and on the basis of the older project, starts a new, competing project with publicly credible quality controls. The result would be what is called in the open content software world a fork. I fully believe that if a respected university, thinktank, or other established institution were to do this, Wikipedia, or child-of-Wikipedia, would blossom into a reference source the likes of which the world has never before seen. [2]
Truth be told I thought about something very similar this week. Someone could skive off a quarter-million articles, put them under a more peer-reviewed editing scheme and... Wyss 17:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
lose their shirt. Fred Bauder 17:42, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Totally :) Any model would have to be supported. Wyss 18:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Only out of a non-profit motive could it be done, where there is no need to get a return on investment because it would be a labor of love. It would have to come from a philanthropist with deep pockets, or foundation which believed that giving the gift of knowledge to the world was its own reward. Who or what would be willing to do this, Fred? Uncle Ed 20:10, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Ochlocracy

Anti-elitism is not the best term for the problem. We don't need "an elite". Indeed, the proposition sets up a straw man. Who would want to participate in a project controled by an elite, except the elite? And does it make any sense to consider the entire membership of anything "elite"? Besides, it's poor construction to invite anyone to join the war on anti-anythingism.

The problem is not anti-elitism; it's a lack of respect for scholarship. Where I come from, a statement backed up by a reference automatically and without question outweighs any unsupported statement. A good reference beats a shitty reference and a dozen references beats one alone. No, it's not always that simple; and not everyone agrees on the hierarchy of references; but there is a sort of foundation that the whole house of cards rests upon.

Our enemy is ochlocracy, government by the mob, everymanism, denigration of merit, the exaltation of stupidity.

Yes and I'd agree that the term elitism verges on polemics and is part of the problem in itself. Wyss 05:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My petty recent axe to grind

Yesterday, I spent 15 straight hours editing, much of that time spent in research. Two hours of that time went to improving Photosensitive epilepsy. It took a meddler perhaps 15 minutes to screw it up and insult me and I don't have the time, patience, or energy to go to war over it.

As long as the castle-jumpers can destroy 8 times as fast as the builders can build, there will always be a uphill battle to produce and maintain decent content. — Xiong熊talk* 00:51, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

So I think about Hypatia at Alexandria. Wyss 05:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Update: The other editor and I were able to work out our differences. I probably chose a poor example; nonetheless, it's a terrible problem. Wiki only works under certain conditions, and this project has reached a point where for many, it no longer does. — Xiong熊talk* 00:16, 2005 August 11 (UTC)

Will you annotate your classical reference? I hope you're not suggesting I'm headed for an appointment with a basket of meathooks. — Xiong熊talk* 00:18, 2005 August 11 (UTC)

It wasn't directed at anyone, only a citation of an historical event, something PoV warriors did to a scholar out there in the real world. Wyss 16:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beyond agreeing and disagreeing and being neutral...

[edit] Solution?

Maybe what needs to be done is to recognize a certain discipline in editing these articles. Rather than going by what's popular and what people feel should be done I think we need to do some deep reflection on what we want to put in and what should be in. Whenever you get a publicly available editing scheme you start dealing with people's personalities and often personalities clash. But, if we were to come into this with a clinical view of correctness over popularity some things might happen: 1.) We might have to agree with something that goes against our individual views. 2.) We might have to defer to good old fashioned succinctness where we might want to put as much information in as can possibly fit. It's always amazed me how lilliputian egg breaking some of these arguements can get when the simple solution of "keeping it simple, stupid" is long since been passed on by. I think Wikipedia is a great resource if enough people took it seriously and the people contributing it weren't too serious for the wrong reasons. I think there's a very simple solution if we can all keep our heads cool. Wikipedia shouldn't be anti-elitist just as much as it shouldn't be elitist. It should not prefer one over the other and should only put contributions up to clinical scrutiny not popular opinion. Problem with that is not everybody is trained in that form of behavior and more often than not you get your normal everyday untrained Joe trying to be the authority on things. Which is fine, but it takes more than "I think it should be..." or "I disagree on the basis of personal feeling". FazzMunkle 08:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/t/Wikipedia_talk%7EAnti-elitism_9cc0.html"