On 8/18/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
So long as all
these experts are doing is writing critical reviews,
the need to strictly limit who can and can't write such reviews is
overrated. If, on the other hand, you want to give these experts the
power to enforce their suggested changes, then you're fundamentally
changing the structure of Wikipedia and you might as well fork off a
new project to do so.
I wasn't thinking of critical reviews or suggesting changes, I was
thinking of them vouching for the accuracy of the article. It's not
for our benefit, it's for the benefit of readers. If the readers can't
be sure the expert is really an expert, then there is no benefit.
The way I see it, as a reader mind you, is that so long as the
person's name is out there I can decide for myself whether or not to
consider the person an expert.
But yeah, I guess I misread your suggestion. "What experts should do
as experts is review articles and put their stamp on them as being
correct." I guess the problem with that is that the articles have to
be correct first.