This would give our experts something which their special qualifications,
knowing the literature, would provide real help to Wikipedia. We would still
need to be on the look out for axe grinders. However, the biases of scholars
who have an extensive body of published work are not that hard to figure
out. We might require some real names and verification for this. I seem this
as more a committee of thousands than dozens; but that's looking ahead.
Fred
From: Sj <2.718281828(a)gmail.com>
Reply-To: Sj <2.718281828(a)gmail.com>om>, English Wikipedia
<wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 19:11:46 -0500
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Rules, expertise, and encyclopedic standards
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:56:26 -0700, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
This is something courts do when they are faced
with fact situations they
aren't competent to deal with. Sometimes such a fact finder is called a
special master. This will become much easier to do as more experts become
aware of and interested in Wikipedia.
Neat tidbit. It seems to me it would require a very large pool of
people to draw on. Sort of like the 100+ usage experts for the
American Heritage Dictionary -- not exclusive, just anyone who has
expertise, or a good editing history in that area...
It could be ugly if there were a fixed set of 3 or 4 people for each
subject who were called on each time; or if simple content disputes,
which would otherwise have been resolved elsewhere, were encouraged to
come before the AC.
--
+sj+
_ _ :-------.-.--------.--.--------.-.--------.--.--------[...]
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l