Although I can see where you are coming from, are you not being overly antagonistic to 'amateurs'? In the world I inhabit (cycling history and other areas where 'serious' history is written by 'amateurs') it would be a brave, indeed wreckless position to deny credibility to such sources on the grounds of 'professional' 'expertise'. That is where people such as Bijker come unstuck. While Wikipedia will never be a first division source, it acts as an opening reference which can be followed up. In fact, in many cases it presents the state-of-the-art position because it is contested by 'amateurs' who happen to know a lot more than the 'professionals'. I have no hesitatation in agreeing that any Wikipedia entry requires some sort of triangulation, but to discount one on the grounds of 'amateurism' seems arrogant. Any long-view of design research would demonstrate that a significant number of 'authorities' were 'amateur'. In the world of cycling 'amateur' is a very loaded term, particularly in the late 19th century, I would not be discounting the views of George Lacy-Hillier or Ion Keith Falconer because they were 'amateurs'. If you do not know them, you might want to check them up on Wikipedia!
Nicholas Oddy
The Glasgow School of Art is a charity registered in Scotland, charity number SC012490.
|