[WikiEN-l] Improve quality by reviewing all new articles

Fri Dec 16 21:58:06 UTC 2005

Rob wrote:

>I'm sorry, but if you don't think that the assertion
>that someone was involved in both the JFK and the RFK
>assassination is not some sort of lunatic fringe claim
>that at least deserves some sort of cursory
>verification, then I don't think the suggestion that
>you should not be editing an encyclopedia is all that
>outrageous.  
>
Heh, I guarantee you that I could create a ichthyological whopper,
pun intended, with pictures and citations from some of the rarer
books in my personal library, and it will slip right by you, plus
everyone else who doesn't happen to have those books to check. I bet
I could even get it into the day's DYK!

But if you don't know enough to evaluate, say, the plausibility of
an article about the popular home aquarium fish Melanocetus, I'm
not going to take that as evidence you should not be editing the
encyclopedia; it just means that no one person can know enough to
be able to make accurate quick judgments on each new article. We
need better teamwork, not just individual prowess.

Come to think of it, why didn't *you* personally catch the bogus
Seigenthaler article? Seems like it should be right in one of
your areas of special knowledge, right? And don't you RC patrol?

Stan