Wikipedians admit defeat

[rhindle]

Hawking radiation (T-H-L)

The tag on top says...

This article needs attention from an expert in Physics. The specific problem is: Try to get this technically right (ish). It's clear the explanation we have had to date is naive and not in accordance with the actual physics of hawking radiation. Tried to fix at least as best I can, but needs expert attention to get it right. WikiProject Physics may be able to help recruit an expert. (January 2021)

That looks almost like throwing in the towel to me. Maybe Jimbo can find a 17 year-old who knows better. Hopefully no Essjay-like fraud will try something but I think that could be sniffed since physics is a little harder to fake expert knowledge of than one would with theology. To be fair, this topic is not the easiest and the challenge is not just to be accurate but make a layreader at least understand to a decent degree.

[Poetlister]

There are limits to crowdsourcing and the belittling of experts is a cornerstone of the Wikipedia culture. But Hawking radiation should be within the grasp of any physics graduate and there must be a few of those on the site.

[Hemiauchenia]

To be fair, Wikipedia actually has a number of professional physicists. XOR'easter (T-C-L)and Tercer (T-C-L) come to mind, who have recently gotten Quantum Mechanics (T-H-L) to GA.

[AndyTheGrump]

They've even got a Nobel-winning physicist, though I'm not sure I'd recommend him for anything controversial.

[Poetlister]

They've even got a Nobel-winning physicist, though I'm not sure I'd recommend him for anything controversial.

While just about anything can become controversial on Wikipedia, however cut and dried you might think it is, it would take a pretty twisted mind to make Hawking radiation a controversial topic.

[AnimuAvatar]

They've even got a Nobel-winning physicist, though I'm not sure I'd recommend him for anything controversial.

While just about anything can become controversial on Wikipedia, however cut and dried you might think it is, it would take a pretty twisted mind to make Hawking radiation a controversial topic.

You say that but I can already picture the ArbCom case...

[Hemiauchenia]

They've even got a Nobel-winning physicist, though I'm not sure I'd recommend him for anything controversial.

While just about anything can become controversial on Wikipedia, however cut and dried you might think it is, it would take a pretty twisted mind to make Hawking radiation a controversial topic.

Pretty sure Andy is referring to Brian Josephson (T-C-L), who is notorious for his "research" into fringe psychic and paranormal bullshit.

[Poetlister]

They've even got a Nobel-winning physicist, though I'm not sure I'd recommend him for anything controversial.

While just about anything can become controversial on Wikipedia, however cut and dried you might think it is, it would take a pretty twisted mind to make Hawking radiation a controversial topic.

Pretty sure Andy is referring to Brian Josephson (T-C-L), who is notorious for his "research" into fringe psychic and paranormal bullshit.

I'm sure you're right. I'm not aware of any other Nobel laureate editors. But if he chose to explain Hawking radiation, it seems unlikely that he'd muck it up.

[Beeblebrox]

The thread title is really not accurate. We all love a good dramatic thread title, but asking for help indicates not giving up.

[rhindle]

The thread title is really not accurate. We all love a good dramatic thread title, but asking for help indicates not giving up.

LOL. While the thread title is slightly facetious, there's still more than a kernal of truth to it considering how wikipedians try to downplay experts so asking for one is akin to giving up.

[Emptyeye]

The thread title is really not accurate. We all love a good dramatic thread title, but asking for help indicates not giving up.

LOL. While the thread title is slightly facetious, there's still more than a kernal of truth to it considering how wikipedians try to downplay experts so asking for one is akin to giving up.

Agreed. The title is snarky, definitely, but Wikipedia does have the perception of being "anti-expert"*--arguably, that's one of the things that's enabled it to thrive (Though Wikipedians would no doubt dress it up as "The democratization of knowledge!" or somesuch) over the years. As such, yeah, I can imagine the "Yeah no we actually DO need an expert here" edit being made through gritted teeth.

*How well-earned the perception is, I can't say for certain. But for whatever his many other faults are, and for however badly it was executed, I find Larry Sanger's initial conception of Citizendium as "Wikipedia but INcluding not EXcluding subject matter experts" to be telling.

[Poetlister]

But for whatever his many other faults are, and for however badly it was executed, I find Larry Sanger's initial conception of Citizendium as "Wikipedia but INcluding not EXcluding subject matter experts" to be telling.

I agree totally. How can anything claim to be a serious reference work unless it is written or at least vetted by experts? Of course, you have to ensure that your experts are genuine experts and don't try to throw their weight around outside their areas of expertise.