|
I will opine here that in your discussion of expertise you are addressing less than half of the issue. Expertise is (as has been noted) domain-specific: an expert on chemistry may not be an expert on Pokemon, or vice-versa. While age, training/education, and experience often yield expertise, they do not always. It has also been pointed out that there are those who are experts in fields far from their training (musician/mathematicians, for example), and a well-read and balanced editor can often successfully channel the expertise of others.
However, the source of great issue on Wikis is that expertise is in the eye of the beholder: the expertise of PhD evolutionary biologist is of no meaning to a creationist, and even the direct observation of (e.g.) an astronaut does not convince a flat-earther. Expertise, simply, is not enough.
Ultimately, we trust an encyclopedia or other reference work to represent the majority/consensus view of a topic and to represent or mention significant minority positions according to the reputation of their proponents.
Thus, far more important than "raw" expertise is the reputation of the proponent, i.e. the trust placed in him or her by others. A young PhD may validly claim to be an expert, while another individual with less expertise but a better reputation is more believable. Forgive the out-of-date reference, but one might trust Richard Feynman's pronouncements on space-shuttle design more than certain "rocket scientists". While there are pitfals in this approach (cf William Shockley), it is the dominant one in our society.
On Wikipedia, there is no good way to determinate or establish either an editor's expertise or reputation -- this is clearly unacceptable. A long history of correct repair of spelling mistakes or vandalism reversion does not qualify someone for expertise in any given field (other than spelling, I suppose). I would also guess that a reputation established only within an online community is too easily disposable to be a real asset, so the only alternative is real-world reputation.
Young people have less-developed real-world reputation, and this is where the ageism/credentialism/Ivory Tower debate kicks in. A college education may or may not yield expertise, but it conveys a certain reputation: if you have a PhD from Oxford or Harvard or Princeton you are expected to have a certain amount of training in critical thinking, scientific method, etc, and perhaps a better reputation than if you have no degree, have not completed high school, or are a graduate from Podunk College.
So I tend to agree with Larry's elitism: most topics in an encyclopedia should be edited, when possible, by people who have a reputation for expertise in a field (as distinct from simple, stated expertise).
This post has been edited by IronDuke:
|
On the Nature and Sources of Expertise, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Wiki Systems
Jonny Cache On the Nature and Sources of Expertise 
