-----Original Message-----
From: steve v [mailto:vertigosteve@yahoo.com]
Having no binding authority, and otherwise bogged
down
with a "mutual acceptance" policy (now experimentally
being torched BTW), the result has been a bit
disorganized, and slow.
[snip]
Then what should the current MC committee do? Oversee
the open committee? I dont know. Ive suggested an NPOV
committee would be useful, which sort of interprets NPOV
issues case by case, and makes a centralized reference
database for how to approach these cases. Depending on your
view of disputes on WP and the disruptiveness of these toward
articles and their improvement, then you can say an NPOV
committee is either a great thing or waste of time.
I'm starting some experiments on Moderated Article Development. William
Connolley are trying this (as peers) with climate change. I've also
started
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Inde
mnity_Act/moderated and I hope to start a similar page for Terry
Schiavo.
The rules are:
1. Anyone may take out anything they disagree with - provided
they discuss it. (I call this a "text move")
2. Nobody is allowed to revert a text move. (I call this the zero-RR)
Ed Poor