2009/2/16 Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>om>:
K. Peachey wrote:
'But the
failure to take seriously the suggestion of any role of
experts can only be
considered a failure of imagination,' writes Sanger.
'One need only ask what an open, bottom-up system with a role for expert
decision-making would be like.'
In other words, despite all appearances, CZ is
superior to WP. Well, I
think we saw where this was going a little earlier.
Which in practice will end up a bit like this:
http://reinderdijkhuis.com/wordpress/2009/02/12/citizendium-the-encyclopedi…
Precis: experts are not a panacea.
cf: Stirling Newberry's many posts several years ago to wikien-l and
wikipedia-l pointing out that the problem with a lot of experts is
that they got to be experts by pushing a POV better than anyone else.
(Larry Sanger is aware of this blog post, and dismisses it as missing
the point. However, the Citizendium article on homeopathy is still an
NPOV disaster.)
In any case, we're not short of experts on Wikipedia. You can hardly
move without bumping into a Ph.D. It's not nicknamed "Unemployed Ph.D
Deathmatch" for nothing.
- d.