QUOTE(Happy drinker @ Fri 13th November 2009, 12:09pm)
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 13th November 2009, 4:37am)
QUOTE(Happy drinker @ Thu 12th November 2009, 3:54pm)
According to some people here, she should write the Wikipedia article on the effects of smoking, and would do a better job than people who are not expert pharmacologists...
It's not an obscure topic, is it?
So does the theory that only experts should write Wikipedia articles only apply to obscure topics? If so, who decides what is an obscure topic?
HD, you don't seem to understand something. I don't think any of us are arguing who "should" or "should not" write Wikipedia articles. We're concerned that many Wikipedians claim that the articles they have determined (and we are to trust) were predominantly written by amateur nobodies are in fact
better than articles elsewhere written by experts. We're also concerned that Wikipedians market their site as the "sum of human knowledge" and as an "encyclopedia". And finally, we're concerned that often times, expert contribution to this compendium of mostly amateur-generated content is shunned or even prohibited via blocking of expert accounts.
But, if it pleases you, go ahead and continue to reframe arguments here, so that we look stupid or intractable or misinformed or unrealistic or whatever. We can see that you get a kick out of that. Maybe I'll dream of punching you in the face, too, since that seems to keep you running with the needle on red for a few weeks, too.