On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:47:09 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway
<minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote:
Deathphoenix said:
Having teams of trusted moderators (not necessarily the same team for
each article) to overlook certain "risky" articles might be a good
compromise. Part of being in a team of trusted moderators is the
knowledge that the best safeguard of content is verifiability. The team
can have disagreements, but I think it would be better to argue on the
talk page than to get into edit/revert war.
You can't have "a team of trusted moderators" *and*
verifiability--well,
you can, but only up to the point where the moderators are challenged on
unverifiable material. At which point you have stopped trusting them and
you might as well have just left things the way they were.
I don't think challenging moderators on unverified material imples
that you have stopped trusting them. I think the moderators are a
layer of "protection" on deciding what to include in the article based
on other people's input. The moderators wouldn't be the *only*
contributors to the article, they would merely the only ones allowed
to edit the article itself. The other option for a protected/moderated
article is to have admins edit the article (which, AFAIK, is the
current system for protected pages). I just think having moderators
takes some work of editing protected pages away from the potentially
overworked admins.
Cheers,
DP