This is all well and good, having a review board and experts stuff and all...
But is it really necessary?
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:16:37 -0700 (PDT), Daniel Mayer
<maveric149(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
--- Geoff Burling <llywrch(a)agora.rdrop.com>
wrote:
In short, if faced with choosing between an
expert who does not care to
conform to the Wikipedia way (by which I mean is willing to engage in
give-&-take in the writing of material) & a non-expert who is willing
to learn & "play nice" with other contributors, I would choose the
latter. And I hope I am not alone in this preference.
You explained the strengths and weaknesses extremely well, but your conclusion
is based on an either/or choice. I very firmly believe that this is not an
either/or choice and that we should leverage the strengths of both against
their weaknesses (I too have come across PhD's - in print and in person - who
espouse nearly crank theories).
So a particular subject area approval board may decide to have one or more
experts read an article along with one or more non-expert but trusted
Wikipedians who are self-taught in the topic area. Each person reading the
article would grade the article based on whether or not it covers its topic
area well, is a fair treatment (presenting important but non-mainstream views
with the appropriate detail and caveats), and whether or not there are obvious
errors of fact.
Each would have *equal* veto power over not approving the article by giving it
a sub-standard grade in any of several different categories. Conflicts of
judgment will have to be worked out among the judges.
Rather egalitarian, no?
-- mav
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l