No, I don’t see the necessity for it at all. Instead, there should be some way to identify yourself and show that you are a legitimate authority. “Original research” is miles apart from original research, I feel.
It’s like in our company we have to get consent forms signed for any photos to go on facebook. But they don’t have any method to get the consent forms to them. I pointed this out to them last time and got a curt “We’re working on it”. Well then how am I supposed to prove I have consent?
??
The consent forms are obviously for your company, not for Facebook. That way, if somebody gets upset about having their picture posted, HR can say, “We have your consent to have your picture posted.”
They don’t leave jokes up. But they do have a section of the wiki archiving the best stuff.
Oh, and TV Tropes has no “fact checking” guidelines at all. They are more formal than they used to be, but they aren’t bad (especially now that the randomly capricious owner has left.) It does suck that they enforce “family friendly” standards now, though.
All words are made up; it’s just that they’ll only publish the ones where there’s a general consensus that they have a widely agreed meaning. Similarly, Wikipedia doesn’t want competing entries and edits by battling fanboys brandishing their tiny stubs. They want the consensus version, not the groundbreaking research on why Bat-Hound has to wear a mask.
About a decade ago, late one night, I made a Wikipedia page for the title of Bugs Bunny’s song. I forget exactly how I spelled it, but the title of the page was something like “Ty-Ra-Ra-Boom-Dee-A”.
Early the next morning, there was an email stating that my page had been taken down.
The funny part? Someone else had also found it and edited it in the middle of the night and made corrections before it had been taken down.
Whatever its faults, Wikipedia has been an amazing and hugely successful phenomenon. How does its scope compare quantitatively with print encyclopedias? The comparison is mind-boggling. And printed books also contain errors.
I have also been frustrated sometimes in my attempts to improve Wikipedia pages. But the painful and chaotic process is part of the magic that led to Wikipedia. (I once got email from a Wiki editor whose side I’d taken asking me to help. Due to some limit – one edit per day? – the Wiki edit-war would be won by whichever side enlisted the largest army. It seemed silly, but it was sort of democratic. )
Some edits are left intact but with a “Cite needed” tag. This seems OK. The problem isn’t good-spirited editing by knowledgeable amateurs, but the anal-retentive editors who disapprove of something (e.g., those who edit by IP rather than name) and reflexively remove content without consideration for its value.
One of the Wikipedia mottos is (or used to be) Edit aggressively. Those who see errors at Wikipedia and complain without editing the error away are part of the problem. (I’m not speaking of OP, who has tried to contribute.)
The “cite needed” isn’t really relevant to the OP’s complaint about Wikipedia not recognizing “authentic experts” since anyone’s contributions (even authentic amateurs) can be challenged. The OP seems to be suggesting that special consideration should be given to the contributions of “authentic experts,” whatever that means. And it seems to me that doing so would require a process to verify that someone really is an authentic expert.
None of your observations have much of anything to do with the experiences I’m talking about.
If qualified expertise is not a valid basis for adding material to a “reference,” and only nonexpert accretion of info from elsewhere is allowed, the result is a self-limited imitation of what a “reference” is supposed to be.
I won’t even go into why putting Bat-Hound, Bradies, beta particles and beatitudes on the same playing field (of amateur contributions and arbitrary editing) becomes the very definition of self canceling nonsense.
I am Branch 1 of the organization. I have to submit all of my facebook posts for approval to Branch 2.
Branch 2 says, do you have approval for these shots you took at X company?
I say yes, I have the signed consent forms, but you have established no method for me to get them to you. Do I fax them, scan them in, mail them?
I’ve taken four phone calls since I started this post and kind of forgot my point but I think it was “Wikipedia dings you for not being able to prove that you are in fact a valid original researcher but gives you no way to prove it”.
)