--- Matt R <matt_crypto(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I disagree with you. Personally, I would distinguish
between the process for
writing articles, and the process of evaluating the quality of articles. For
the former, when *writing* articles, academic qualifications should confer
no additional authority or weight -- an unqualified person should have an
equal right to edit the content of an article as should a PhD.
However, when certifying the quality of articles, I think expert review (in
addition to general review) is necessary -- I can give reasons for this, if
you want. Academic qualifications are one form of evidence of expertise.
...
P.S. I like the idea of "stable" vs "development" versions of an
article.
<aol>I very much agree with this.</aol>
The stable version could be at
http://en.wikipedia.org/stable/Article_Name and
the development version would still be at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Name with appropriate backlinks and a
different-enough UI to make the distinction obvious.
But we have to start something ala Larry's sifter idea since we are getting
slammed in the media due to our perceived non-trusted status (I personally
think these objections are laughable since they are comparing us to
encyclopedias that are hundreds of years old and that have very similar
disclaimers).
-- mav
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com