Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2/Proposed decision

Fred Bauder said: It would be helpful if there was a way to certify administrators as specialists in areas such as science..

Yes, I agree. If you want to hear other administrators' opininions, I'd guess a decent proportion of admininstrators which are also physics experts (to a varying degree) are already involved. Out of memory I can only name User:CSTAR as another physicist. And User:Tim Starling, but he wouldn't count as uninvoled, as he did Reddi-watch already in 2003, see User:Tim Starling/Reddi watchlist.

Heavens! CSTAR was already driven away! But from the condolence page, I see User:Oleg Alexandrov is admin and mathematican.

User:Karol Langner is physicist but not an admin. Should probably become one.

Pjacobi 18:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the reference to "administrators" is unnecessarily restrictive. Why should an expert in a particular field want to become an administrator? Why should someone studying for their doctorate who is an admin be recognised by WP as an expert, but not an academic who is leading in their field who comes new to Wikipedia? Users are quite free to let the world know their qualifications on their userpages. Then we can assess where they are coming from. Users who do not admit to qualifications on a particular subject should be assumed not to have them.

By the way, WP:Verifiability already prevents material that does not have a reputable source from being in Wikipedia. We don't therefore need another rule about it, jguk 10:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That shifts the problem to deciding what's a reputable source. Reddi is very busy giving sources for the material he is including. --Pjacobi 15:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Great the wikinquisition "... simple suppression of intellectual dissent. This is when a more powerful opponent tries to silence the other (directly and indirectly) rather than trying to defeat the arguments of the other. When an individual acts or does something that is seen as a threat to a special interest group or other group of individuals, action is usually taken in an earnest and conscientious action intended to stop or penalise the dissenting individual. Opponents are commonly composed of governments, industries, or professions.

This is suppression of heresy by some "experts". Robert Anton Wilson, in "The New Inquisition" (New Falcon Publications, 1991), called this an inquisition of the editors and reviewers of scientific journals, of "leading authorities" and "self-appointed 'skeptics'" ... Sincerely, J. D. Redding

We are just not set up to be cutting edge. Wikipedia is only a dull restatement of generally agreed on established knowledge. Creativity and innovation are welcome in other forums. Fred Bauder 14:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is set up to be "cutting edge" (for example, see current events) if it adheres to no original research, carries citations, and is in a NPOV. Wikipedia is only a restatement of knowledge (as per verifiability plainly states). This isn't "creativity and innovation" (eg., not doing original research) ... it the statement of facts (not a "statement of 'truth'") and was (for a time) welcomed in Wikipedia. Sincerely, J. D. Redding 15:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Reddi's previous is very funny: Robert Anton Wilson's major work is The Illuminatus! Trilogy. Its a great book: a mish-mash of truth and invention supporting a vast conspiracy theory... gosh, where have I heard that kind of thing before? William M. Connolley 21:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Competence

I don't think the finding that "Users need to be reasonably competent with respect to the subjects of the articles they choose to edit" is a good one. For instance, it's perfectly reasonable to copyedit and refactor articles on subjects about which you know little. Of course, you wouldn't expect an editor to make large additions of factual information on an article about which they know little, but on the other hand there are many useful contributions such an editor could make to certain articles, jguk 23:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If Tesla is your thing and you insist on putting his theories into general relativity, it's a problem. (An example, not what Reddi does). Fred Bauder 01:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Fred, then maybe "Users need to be reasonably competent with respect to the subjects of the articles they choose to add new information to" would capture the mischief, whilst not stopping such editors from copyediting and refactoring (which can be done very successfully sometimes without having any prior knowledge of the subject)?, jguk 10:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

My first edit on Wikipedia was to General Relativity. I can't remember whether it was a punctuation mistake or a spelling mistake. That is not the issue. The issue is aggressive editing of an article regarding which you are both ignorant and believe you are not. Fred Bauder 14:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion from a non-admin - would a phrasing like "must have sufficient competence regarding the article subject to determine whether or not their edits are factually accurate" be more useful? This fulfills the intended purpose while covering grammar fixes and the like. --Christopher Thomas 21:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Voting (or lack thereof) on the last two items

The last two items do not have any votes casted so far, yet they were authored by Fred Bauder. Did he intend to vote for these items? --TML1988 05:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)