The General Notability Guideline is our friend here. Because we require articles to be verifiable that particular scenario doesn't apply - we frequently have people try and add articles and content in situations as unverifiable as the one the NY Times details. But we reject such content.

Where I believe our crowdsourcing model breaks down is when we don't have a crowd, or we work too quickly for crowds to form:

- Speedy deletion where an admin and maybe one other editor will summarily delete stuff, in theory only if it meets some strict criteria.

- Our smaller wikis. We now have about a thousand, and the wisdom of crowds is inherently vulnerable to subdivision of crowds. A "One wiki per language, plus one multilingual wiki for all those things where we work across languages" would be a better model.

WSC

On 8 July 2012 00:18, ENWP Pine <deyntestiss@hotmail.com> wrote:
 
I thought this was interesting so I’m passing it along. This sentence particularly caught my attention: “The answer, I think, is to take the best of what both experts and markets have to offer, realizing that the combination of the two offers a better window onto the future than either alone.” Substitute the word “crowds” for “markets”, and perhaps there is something here that could be applied to Wikipedia in our quest for quality, mixing the best of expertise and crowdsourcing. I’d be very interested in hearing comments from other Wikipedians.
 
 
Cheers,
 
Pine

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l