What is the encyclopedic value of an article that can only be evaluated by experts in the field?
Maybe we're trying to use Wikipedia as a dumping ground for all knowledge that can be catalogued without really thinking if there are more appropriate locations for it.
An encyclopedia article is normally about starting points. It's supposed to begin the process of unpacking a concept and introduce some ideas, papers, books and actors, to serve as a vehicle for an in depth reading on the subject.
I agree about the purpose of the encyclopedia, but I think only experts are in a position to guide non-experts towards a deeper understanding of a subject. This is what I see as Wikipedia's basic problem. They need experts to write coherent articles, but they want unbiased content. All experts are biased by their expertise, which leaves Wikipedia in a bind. In practice, biased experts write biased articles. In the best case, they try to be as even-handed as possible, but the worst case devolves into the situation described in the article we're discussing, or the AHP page I mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
Edit: to your point about basic information, I think it's going to be difficult finding where to draw the line.
Comments
What is the encyclopedic value of an article that can only be evaluated by experts in the field?
Maybe we're trying to use Wikipedia as a dumping ground for all knowledge that can be catalogued without really thinking if there are more appropriate locations for it.
An encyclopedia article is normally about starting points. It's supposed to begin the process of unpacking a concept and introduce some ideas, papers, books and actors, to serve as a vehicle for an in depth reading on the subject.
I agree about the purpose of the encyclopedia, but I think only experts are in a position to guide non-experts towards a deeper understanding of a subject. This is what I see as Wikipedia's basic problem. They need experts to write coherent articles, but they want unbiased content. All experts are biased by their expertise, which leaves Wikipedia in a bind. In practice, biased experts write biased articles. In the best case, they try to be as even-handed as possible, but the worst case devolves into the situation described in the article we're discussing, or the AHP page I mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
Edit: to your point about basic information, I think it's going to be difficult finding where to draw the line.