Regarding expertise, I think an earlier observation in the same periodical was more insightful:
"An authority isn't a person or institution who is always right – ain't no such animal. An authority is a person or institution who has a process for lowering the likelihood that they are wrong to acceptably low levels. [...] And this is what I think is really worth celebrating as Wikipedia begins its second decade. It took one of the best ideas of the last 500 years – peer review – and expanded its field of operation so dramatically that it changed the way authority is configured."
Wikipedia eschews "expertism" for the most part, and the real question of trust revolves around whether and to what degree it matters who the heck all these "peers" are. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The age-old debate has come up again". All I can see is a pretty poor joke. Unless, of course, Hemsworth was looking up his information in some obscure, non-English Wikipedia. Nageh (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth should some random actor (or any other random person) have any interest in "defending Wikipedia"? It's not his project. It can be hard to remember that to the rest of the world we're just another website -- a prominent one, yes, but something in which they have no personal investment. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to In the news