I think that another wiki with "approved" versions of articles is a good
idea, so that it can be an authoritative source by current standards.
However, it shouldn't get in the way of editing articles on the regular
wiki. Requiring approval for edits would ruin the dynamics of being able to
modify an article anytime and having those changes be visible by anon users
(people just happening upon it) and editable immediately.
From: Keith Maxwell
<cremedelacreme04(a)yahoo.com.au>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] A future for Nupedia?
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:54:21 +1000 (EST)
Fellow Wikipedians,
I agree with this proposal providing that all experienced users who over a
period of time have made valuable contributions to the subject in question
are eligible to approve edits after an election.
I would think that the editorial board would consist of a number of people
with qualifications in the relevant area and people with an interest in the
topic. For example while most if not all people in technical areas like
maths and physics would have degrees if not advanced degrees, the people
who write articles on areas of general interest such as sport or popular
culture would be more varied.
It should be seen as a method of ensuring that we consolidate what we have
and provide assurances that Wikipedia is a generally reliable information
source rather than excluding anyone from making a contribution. The
individuals contributions to Wikipedia rather than just credentialism
should be the key to becoming part of the editorial board.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/