[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       wikipedia-l
Subject:    Re: [Wikipedia-l] An idea
From:       Andrew Venier <avenier () venier ! net>
Date:       2005-06-01 19:44:34
Message-ID: 429E1022.5050701 () venier ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Andrew Venier wrote:
>  
>
>>To me it appears to be quite a display of cognitive dissonance.
>>
>>"We (wikipedia in the aggregate) don't think that credentials carry any
>>weight. At least, not enough to influence our content or policies in any
>>meaningful way.   However, because other people value credentials, we
>>have trouble building credibility without them, so we would like to
>>advertise them in order to enhance our reputation.  We're happy to
>>trumpet our contributor's qualifications, as long as it's clear that
>>they mean nothing to us and in no way affect our process."
>>    
>>
>
>I think that's a fairly accurate summary, but I don't know why you call
>it cognitive dissonance.
>
>--Jimbo
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>  
>
I say "cognitive dissonance" because it seems it is an attempt (and not 
a particularly successful one, in my opinion) to reconcile conflicting 
ideas.  Wikipedia has an entrenched attitude of dismissing credentials.  
However, the belief that credentials are worthless is challenged.  So, 
I'm observing the gymnastics of trying to accommodate both ideas.  In 
this case, it seems the primary device is to impute one of the ideas 
(that credentials have value) to "others".  This path leads to the 
notion that these efforts are being made only for appearance's sake.  
Ultimately, it seems to me that taking a position along the lines of: 
"We care, but then again, we don't." is too conflicted to have any sort 
of persuasive effect on perceptions of Wikipedia.

It still leaves the question:
Why would the project expend such an effort to validate credentials, 
when one of its operating principles is that credentials don't count for 
anything?

In the end I think Wikipedia has to either continue with its current 
M.O. and accept the doubts that come with it, or admit that credentials 
can play some sort of role (however minor) in establishing the 
trustworthiness of information.

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]