Daniel Mayer wrote:
>--- Geoff Burling <llywrch(a)agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Last time I ventured my two cents concerning the print Wikipedia, the
>>response I got led me to conlcude that there was no support for forking
>>Wikipedia even in the slightest to make the content more acceptible -- which
>>is what any approval board would end up doing. Then the project seemed to go
>>into hibernation. Then it seemed that a group was working on it. Now it
>>appears we are back to discussing what should be done.
>>
>>
>What? How do you come to that conclusion? There *will* be no fork at *all* -
>the only thing that will be done is selecting one version of an article that is
>approved in some way. Any future approved version would be based on the
>development version (that is, a regular Wikipedia article which would be in
>perpetual development), not the last stable version.
>
If we adopt a formal approval system, the idea that all future approved
versions will be based on development versions, rather than the last
approved "stable" version, sounds naively idealistic to me. Even without
an approval system, this is already not the case on some of our more
contentious articles. When changes are not agreed on quickly, one side
or the other, and sometimes both, may adopt the tactic of reverting back
to an earlier version of which it "approves". However, since the sides
generally do not approve of the same version, the dispute continues and
often results in a revert war.
Any system that marks a particular revision as "approved" or "stable"
will inherently increase the temptation to blindly revert changes back
to the "stable" revision, instead of trying to work with those changes
and improve the article. This is already a problem in some places and
among some editors (no names, this is not an invitation for
finger-pointing). If we want to implement a system that lets people flag
specific article revisions, let's at least be aware of the possible
downsides to this as well.
--Michael Snow
Been reading the threads about a stable 1.0 etc, and they are
interesting. Here is my 2 pageclicks worth. I apologise up front if
this has been bashed out before, in which case, ignore me :)
Wiki's are about letting anyone contribute, in anyway they want.
Anyone should be able to review - same way anyone can create, add,
amend, edit, categorize, summarise or convert between british and
american spellings ;)
It is *your* opinion of the reviewer's reputation that seems to matter
more. I might be happy with the most recent edit, my mum may want
some approval from a well known (commercial?) brand she can trust. My
friend in research would only accept articles that have been peer
reviewed by at least two other subject aware academics. Having said
I'd be happy with the most recent edits, I might actually want
something more authoritative in some cases.
For instance, if I put my personal mark of approval on these two articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=The_A-Team&oldid=5836501http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&…
... these (as far as I can tell) will never change [1]. You probably
don't care - you don't know me from adam. Still, my mum might use my
list.
I need a way to list articles I have reviewed (and which versions). A
watchlist with added version numbers? A Reviewlist? Only I can amend
my watchlist, so this isn't a big leap forward.
You need a way to read (but not edit) my reviewlist. A list of all
the pages I have reviewed would be a start. Going further, and
assuming I had reviewed enough, have the software only show links to
articles on the reviewlist of your reviewer of choice. Or the
reviewers of your choosing.
There is a limit to how much one person can review, but *you* can
choose to trust many people. Once you've seen articles reviewed by
your own list of reviewers, add the second degree reviewers. Friends
of friends.
m.
ps. reputation systems. basis for trust, eg amazon, ebay, etc.
reviews. There is a connection here me thinks. Why do people buy
from complete strangers on ebay who they've never met? If I've sold a
lot of stuff, and 99% of people where happy, are you any more likely
to trust me as a seller? What if seller becomes reviewer, and buyer
is the reader and we are trading in words?
[1] The only minor issue being I cannot find a way to get this style
of perma-link for the most recent version.
> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:33:17 -0400
> From: Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org>
>
> Computer equipment is becoming so incredibly cheap (...)
>
> <snip>
>
> -Mark
Only in ''relative'' terms. True, the ''price per [[megaflop]]'', or
''price per megabyte'' of RAM or HD space, etc. -- these have all
plummeted. However: in order to get a working computer system of ANY
performance level, you will be lucky to get below a certain minimum
price level. It doesn't even matter what computer generation we're
talking about -- whether 386 / PowerPC 601 or G5 / Opteron. Sure, there
always is that hiatus, that moment where people/companies who are
upgrading obsessively give away their PCs for nothing. But securing one
of these is sheer luck. As a check on ebay will tell you, there is a
bottom line where things don't get cheaper, regardless of what
generation of PC you're buying.
Ironically, if you wanted to buy a good mid-class PC system 10 years
ago, you probably had to spend, say, about $1200. If you want to buy a
good mid-class PC system today, you have to spend -- surprise -- $1200!
Yes, true, today you get "a lot more Mega" for your buck, but Joe
Random User trying to buy a good mid-class PC has probably been
spending the same amount for the last decade or so and the reason for
that is that after the design phase is over, it costs about the same to
fab an Opteron system today as it used to cost to fab a 386 system.
(Back in the very old days it was different, and PCs did indeed cost
$12000 and more instead of $1200. But you're getting my drift.)
Of course marketing suits tell us that things are really, totally
getting cheaper -- well, there probably is ''some'' truth in that as
well. But less than most would think.
Also, I would observe that the "minimum prize level" I mentioned above
is still totally out of reach of (to make up a number), say 90% of the
world population. They just can't spare that money, ridiculously little
though it may seem to us.
Let's not forget that.
-- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]]
www.ropersonline.com
> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:46:43 +0100 (BST)
> From: Matt R <matt_crypto(a)yahoo.co.uk>
>
> So, if the Review Club has sufficient expertise, it reviews the
> article itself.
> If it feels unqualified, it solicits outside expertise. Forgive me if
> I've
> butchered the intent of your post, but this sounds pretty close to a
> requirement for expert knowledge to me.
(Reference:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030521.html
)
We positively DO want to get all the *expert knowledge* we can get.
However we should NOT make the mistake of thinking that the only way we
could get hold of *expert knowledge* was formally installing accredited
experts and giving them more power than the next guy. I'm getting
hoarse saying it, but: The idea is that all input should prevail by
it's own merit and NOT by merit of the person contributing it holding a
degree (=evidence of prior achievement). Letting EVERY contribution
prevail on its own merit will be MORE likely to lead to superior
results.
YES to *expert knowledge*.
YES to having people in our midst who ''could theoretically'' be
regarded as "experts".
NO to actually calling them "experts". (It would introduce bias, eg. it
would intimidate some contributors who might have something useful to
say and would choose to censor themselves because of false awe.)
NO to expressly installing "experts". (They will come automatically.)
NO to designating anyone an "expert" and
NO to associating privilege with such labels. (It would lead to less
scrutiny, because the "expert's" words would no longer have to prevail
on their own merit.)
"One man, one vote" will suffice.
YES to an ''additional option'' to seek outside help:
Only where the collective consensus of the review group gets to be that
the group doesn't know enough, then seek help from outside experts.
With this step, and ONLY with this step (and only as a last resort) the
relevant review board ''could'' also look for academic degrees to for
guidance of who might be competent. This last resort only becomes
necessary when seeking outside help -- and that's because the outside
world is not engaged in a Wiki process whereby it is possible only to
look at the actual merit of "what was said". Using the "who said
it"-principle when looking for outside expertise is a crutch, no doubt.
But it's the "next best thing" to the Wiki process and it may be the
only option left outside of the Wikisphere.
> Moreover, a weakness of this system is
> that the Review Club could easily make a mistake and not realise when
> it has
> insufficient expertise -- people generally dislike admitting their
> limitations.
An individual person might be tempted to oversell him/herself. Yet,
because we're looking at a group of people engaged in a process as
complete peers, that danger is minimized.
> It seems much better to me to have mandatory input from some expert
> with
> evidence of his or her achievement.
NO.
See above.
> -- Matt (User:Matt Crypto)
Thanks and regards,
-- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]]
www.ropersonline.com
Dear Jens, Pedro, Mark, etc. et al:
When any Powerful Jewish or Social-Marxist-PC Lobbies
Censor the Internet...or RULE...EVERYONE ELSE ACTUALLY
PAYS THE VERY HIGH PRICE, as the events of 9/11/01 and
since have thereafter demonstrated.
Jews and Social-Marxists also obviously
do have control over both the Wikipedia
Arbitration Committee and in banning and
in censoring anything or banning or
censoring anyone editing Wikipedia
that is not considered "Kosher"
enough by them.
This is also the actual and real reason for
the undo one year ban and extensions, based
upon the dishonest and unfair judgement of
this same "Kosher" Arbitration Committee and
cabal of lying hypocrites and censors.
Like AIPAC and the Spy Scandal and Pollard
etc. ad nauseum, and the "Neo-Con", actually
"Zionist-Jewish" Kosher Conservative, invasion
of Iraq, soon Iran and then maybe Syria, based
upon lies and hypocrisy and instigated by
same-EVERYONE PAYS THE VERY HIGH PRICE for this biased
JEWISH and SOCIAL-MARXIST-PC CENSORSHIP and RULE!
For example:
A Look at The 'Powerful Jewish Lobby'
by Mark Weber
For decades Israel has violated well established
precepts of
international law and defied numerous United Nations
resolutions in
its occupation of conquered lands, in extra-judicial
killings, and in
its repeated acts of military aggression.
Most of the world regards Israel's policies, and
especially its
oppression of Palestinians, as outrageous and
criminal. This
international consensus is reflected, for example, in
numerous UN
resolutions condemning Israel, which have been
approved with
overwhelming majorities.
"The whole world," United Nations Secretary General
Kofi Annan
recently said, "is demanding that Israel withdraw
[from occupied
Palestinian territories]. I don't think the whole
world ... can be
wrong." [1]
Only in the United States do politicians and the media
still fervently
support Israel and its policies. For decades the US
has provided
Israel with crucial military, diplomatic and financial
backing,
including more than $3 billion each year in aid.
Why is the U.S. the only remaining bastion of support
for Israel?
Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who was awarded
the 1984 Nobel
Peace Prize, has candidly identified the reason: "The
Israeli
government is placed on a pedestal [in the US], and to
criticize it is
to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic," he said.
"People are scared in
this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish
lobby is
powerful � very powerful." [2]
Bishop Tutu spoke the truth. Although Jews make up
only about three
percent of the US population, they wield immense power
and influence �
vastly more than any other ethnic or religious group.
As Jewish author and political science professor
Benjamin Ginsberg has
pointed out: [3]
Since the 1960s, Jews have come to wield considerable
influence in
American economic, cultural, intellectual and
political life. Jews
played a central role in American finance during the
1980s, and they
were among the chief beneficiaries of that decade's
corporate mergers
and reorganizations. Today, though barely two percent
of the nation's
population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires
are Jews. The
chief executive officers of the three major television
networks and
the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the
owners of the
nation's largest newspaper chain and the most
influential single
newspaper, the New York Times ... The role and
influence of Jews in
American politics is equally marked ...
Jews are only three percent of the nation's population
and comprise
eleven percent of what this study defines as the
nation's elite.
However, Jews constitute more than 25 percent of the
elite journalists
and publishers, more than 17 percent of the leaders of
important
voluntary and public interest organizations, and more
than 15 percent
of the top ranking civil servants.
Stephen Steinlight, former Director of National
Affairs of the
American Jewish Committee, similarly notes the
"disproportionate
political power" of Jews, which is "pound for pound
the greatest of
any ethnic/cultural group in America." He goes on to
explain that
"Jewish economic influence and power are
disproportionately
concentrated in Hollywood, television, and in the news
industry." [4]
Two well-known Jewish writers, Seymour Lipset and Earl
Raab, pointed
out in their 1995 book, Jews and the New American
Scene: [5]
During the last three decades Jews [in the United
States] have made up
50 percent of the top two hundred intellectuals ... 20
percent of
professors at the leading universities ... 40 percent
of partners in
the leading law firms in New York and Washington ...
59 percent of the
directors, writers, and producers of the 50
top-grossing motion
pictures from 1965 to 1982, and 58 percent of
directors, writers, and
producers in two or more primetime television series.
The influence of American Jewry in Washington, notes
the Israeli daily
Jerusalem Post, is "far disproportionate to the size
of the community,
Jewish leaders and U.S. official acknowledge. But so
is the amount of
money they contribute to [election] campaigns." One
member of the
influential Conference of Presidents of Major American
Jewish
Organizations "estimated Jews alone had contributed 50
percent of the
funds for [President Bill] Clinton's 1996 re-election
campaign." [6]
"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality
of Jewish power
and prominence in popular culture," acknowledges
Michael Medved, a
well-known Jewish author and film critic. "Any list of
the most
influential production executives at each of the major
movie studios
will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish
names." [7]
One person who has carefully studied this subject is
Jonathan J.
Goldberg, now editor of the influential Jewish
community weekly
Forward. In his 1996 book, Jewish Power, he wrote: [8]
In a few key sectors of the media, notably among
Hollywood studio
executives, Jews are so numerically dominant that
calling these
businesses Jewish-controlled is little more than a
statistical
observation ...
Hollywood at the end of the twentieth century is still
an industry
with a pronounced ethnic tinge. Virtually all the
senior executives at
the major studios are Jews. Writers, producers, and to
a lesser degree
directors are disproportionately Jewish � one recent
study showed the
figure as high as 59 percent among top-grossing films.
The combined weight of so many Jews in one of
America's most lucrative
and important industries gives the Jews of Hollywood a
great deal of
political power. They are a major source of money for
Democratic
candidates.
Reflecting their role in the American media, Jews are
routinely
portrayed as high-minded, altruistic, trustworthy,
compassionate, and
deserving of sympathy and support. While millions of
Americans readily
accept such stereotyped imagery, not everyone is
impressed. "I am very
angry with some of the Jews," complained actor Marlon
Brando during a
1996 interview. "They know perfectly well what their
responsibilities
are ... Hollywood is run by Jews. It's owned by Jews,
and they should
have a greater sensitivity about the issue of people
who are
suffering." [9]
A Well-Entrenched Factor
The intimidating power of the "Jewish lobby" is not a
new phenomenon,
but has long been an important factor in American
life.
In 1941 Charles Lindbergh spoke about the danger of
Jewish power in
the media and government. The shy 39-year-old � known
around the world
for his epic 1927 New York to Paris flight, the first
solo
trans-Atlantic crossing � was addressing 7,000 people
in Des Moines,
Iowa, on September 11, 1941, about the dangers of US
involvement in
the war then raging in Europe. The three most
important groups
pressing America into war, he explained, were the
British, the Jews,
and the Roosevelt administration.
Of the Jews, he said: "Their greatest danger to this
country lies in
their large ownership and influence in our motion
pictures, our press,
our radio, and our government." Lindbergh went on:
... For reasons which are understandable from their
viewpoint as they
are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not
American, [they]
wish to involve us in the war. We cannot blame them
for looking out
for what they believe to be their own interests, but
we must also look
out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and
prejudices of
other peoples to lead our country to destruction.
In 1978, Jewish American scholar Alfred M. Lilienthal
wrote in his
detailed study, The Zionist Connection: [10]
How has the Zionist will been imposed on the American
people?... It is
the Jewish connection, the tribal solidarity among
themselves and the
amazing pull on non-Jews, that has molded this
unprecedented power ...
In the larger metropolitan areas, the Jewish-Zionist
connection
thoroughly pervades affluent financial, commercial,
social,
entertainment, and art circles.
As a result of the Jewish grip on the media, wrote
Lilienthal, news
coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict in American
television,
newspapers and magazines is relentlessly sympathetic
to Israel. This
is manifest, for example, in the misleading portrayal
of Palestinian
"terrorism." As Lilienthal put it: "One-sided
reportage on terrorism,
in which cause is never related to effect, was assured
because the
most effective component of the Jewish connection is
probably that of
media control."
One-Sided 'Holocaust' History
The Jewish hold on cultural and academic life has had
a profound
impact on how Americans look at the past. Nowhere is
the well
entrenched Judeocentric view of history more obvious
than in the
"Holocaust" media campaign, which focuses on the fate
of Jews in
Europe during World War II.
Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer, a professor
at Hebrew
University in Jerusalem, has remarked: [11]
Whether presented authentically or inauthentically, in
accordance with
the historical facts or in contradiction to them, with
empathy and
understanding or as monumental kitsch, the Holocaust
has become a
ruling symbol of our culture ... Hardly a month goes
by without a new
TV production, a new film, a new drama, new books,
prose or poetry,
dealing with the subject, and the flood is increasing
rather than
abating.
Non-Jewish suffering simply does not merit comparable
attention.
Overshadowed in the focus on Jewish victimization are,
for example,
the tens of millions of victims of America's World War
II ally,
Stalinist Russia, along with the tens of millions of
victims of
China's Maoist regime, as well as the 12 to 14 million
Germans,
victims of the flight and expulsion of 1944-1949, of
whom some two
million lost their lives.
The well-financed Holocaust media and "educational"
campaign is
crucially important to the interests of Israel. Paula
Hyman, a
professor of modern Jewish history at Yale University,
has observed:
"With regard to Israel, the Holocaust may be used to
forestall
political criticism and suppress debate; it reinforces
the sense of
Jews as an eternally beleaguered people who can rely
for their defense
only upon themselves. The invocation of the suffering
endured by the
Jews under the Nazis often takes the place of rational
argument, and
is expected to convince doubters of the legitimacy of
current Israeli
government policy." [12]
Norman Finkelstein, a Jewish scholar who has taught
political science
at City University of New York (Hunter College), says
in his book, The
Holocaust Industry, that "invoking The Holocaust" is
"a ploy to
delegitimize all criticism of Jews." [13] "By
conferring total
blamelessness on Jews, the Holocaust dogma immunizes
Israel and
American Jewry from legitimate censure ... Organized
Jewry has
exploited the Nazi holocaust to deflect criticism of
Israel's and its
own morally indefensible policies." He writes of the
brazen
"shakedown" of Germany, Switzerland and other
countries by Israel and
organized Jewry "to extort billions of dollars." "The
Holocaust,"
Finkelstein predicts, "may yet turn out to be the
'greatest robbery in
the history of mankind'."
Jews in Israel feel free to act brutally against
Arabs, writes Israeli
journalist Ari Shavit, "believing with absolute
certitude that now,
with the White House, the Senate and much of the
American media in our
hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our
own." [14]
Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the US Joint
Chiefs of
Staff, has spoken with blunt exasperation about the
Jewish-Israeli
hold on the United States: [15]
I've never seen a President � I don't care who he is �
stand up to
them [the Israelis]. It just boggles the mind. They
always get what
they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the
time. I got to
the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the
American people
understood what a grip those people have got on our
government, they
would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't
have any idea what
goes on.
Today the danger is greater than ever. Israel and
Jewish
organizations, in collaboration with this country's
pro-Zionist "amen
corner," are prodding the United States � the world's
foremost
military and economic power � into new wars against
Israel's enemies.
As the French ambassador in London recently
acknowledged, Israel �
which he called "that shitty little country" � is a
threat to world
peace. "Why should the world be in danger of World War
III because of
those people?," he said. [16]
To sum up: Jews wield immense power and influence in
the United
States. The "Jewish lobby" is a decisive factor in US
support for
Israel. Jewish-Zionist interests are not identical to
American
interests. In fact, they often conflict.
As long as the "very powerful" Jewish lobby remains
entrenched, there
will be no end to the systematic Jewish distortion of
current affairs
and history, the Jewish-Zionist domination of the U.S.
political
system, Zionist oppression of Palestinians, the bloody
conflict
between Jews and non-Jews in the Middle East, and the
Israeli threat
to peace.
Notes
1. Quoted in Forward (New York City), April 19,
2002, p. 11.
2. D. Tutu, "Apartheid in the Holy Land," The
Guardian (Britain),
April 29, 2002.
3. Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and
the State
(University of Chicago, 1993), pp. 1, 103.
4. S. Steinlight, "The Jewish Stake in America's
Changing
Demography: Reconsidering a Misguided Immigration
Policy," Center for
Immigration Studies, Nov. 2001. http://www.cis.
org/articles/2001/back1301.html
5. Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab, Jews and
the New American
Scene (Harvard Univ. Press, 1995), pp. 26-27.
6. Janine Zacharia, "The Unofficial Ambassadors
of the Jewish
State," The Jerusalem Post (Israel), April 2, 2000.
Reprinted in
"Other Voices," June 2000, p. OV-4, a supplement to
The Washington
Report on Middle East Affairs.
7. M. Medved, "Is Hollywood Too Jewish?," Moment,
Vol. 21, No. 4
(1996), p. 37.
8. Jonathan Jeremy Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside
the American
Jewish Establishment (Addison-Wesley, 1996), pp. 280,
287-288. See
also pp. 39-40, 290-291.
9. Interview with Larry King, CNN network, April
5, 1996. "Brando
Remarks," Los Angeles Times, April 8, 1996, p. F4
(OC). A short time
later, Brando was obliged to apologize for his
remarks.
10. A. Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection (New
York: Dodd, Mead,
1978), pp. 206, 218, 219, 229.
11. From a 1992 lecture, published in: David
Cesarani, ed., The
Final Solution: Origins and Implementation (London and
New York:
Routledge, 1994), pp. 305, 306.
12. Paula E. Hyman, "New Debate on the
Holocaust," The New York
Times Magazine, Sept. 14, 1980, p. 79.
13. Norman G. Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry
(London, New
York: Verso, 2000), pp. 130, 138, 139, 149.
14. The New York Times, May 27, 1996. Shavit is
identified as a
columnist for Ha'aretz, a Hebrew-language Israeli
daily newspaper,
"from which this article is adapted."
15. Interview with Moorer, Aug. 24, 1983. Quoted
in: Paul Findley,
They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions
Confront Israel's
Lobby (Lawrence Hill, 1984 and 1985), p. 161.
16. D. Davis, "French Envoy to UK: Israel
Threatens World Peace,"
Jerusalem Post, Dec. 20, 2001. The French ambassador
is Daniel
Bernard.
6/02
About the author
Mark Weber is director of the Institute for Historical
Review. He
studied history at the University of Illinois
(Chicago), the
University of Munich, Portland State University and
Indiana University
(M.A., 1977). For nine years he served as editor of
the IHR's Journal
of Historical Review.
Send $2 for a packet of literature and full listing of
books. Or,
order more copies of this leaflet, postpaid, at the
following prices:
10 copies: $2.00 � 50 copies: $7.50
100 copies, or more: 10 cents each
INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW
Post Office Box 2739 � Newport Beach, California 92659
www.ihr.org
<br><br>
Free Speech Web Hosting <br>
http://www.1st-amendment.net
Best regards,
Paul Vogel aka the NEEDLE
http://www.cosmotheism.net
We divinely conscious humans are not apart, but are a
meaningful and purposeful part of the whole physical
Cosmos. Humans are both a mental and a spiritual
_expression and manifestation of the universe coming
into a total conscious awakening and full awareness of
both KNOWING and COMPLETING itself. Humans are the
physical manifestation of the cosmos coming into a
total awareness of itself as a UNIFIED WHOLE through
arete' and via both creative and conscious evolution.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Shop for Back-to-School deals on Yahoo! Shopping.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/backtoschool
>> Um what's to stop the expert making a mistake and not realising that
>> he
>> has insufficient expertise?
>
> The scenario is that Wikipedia editors have found an expert with a
> proven
> track-record in the specific subject area of the article, and
> solicited his
> opinion. In this scenario, the expert's track-record provides some
> evidence
> that the expert has the expertise -- we wouldn't be relying on his or
> her
> self-evaluation. Such evidence could never be conclusive, but I think
> it's a
> lot better than none at all.
>
> -- Matt (User:Matt Crypto)
This is NOT a choice between one single person's academic accreditation
vs. one single person's self-evaluation.
It's a choice between the ''collective'' wisdom and joint assessment of
a larger group of people** vs. one single person's academic
accreditation.
** some of them likely will just so happen to hold academic degrees
themselves, without that ever being an issue or getting mentioned
- Jens
On 13 Sep 2004, at 15:47, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 02:06:08 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com>
>
> We need a way to select content for the print/stable version and to
> make sure
> that that content is good quality and can be trusted.
>
> -- mav
Yes we do.
But as I've explained here:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030521.html
we do ''not'' need to give any preference to "experts" (ie. people who
can demonstrate prior achievement) to make that happen.
We ''can'' build a review club in the best Wikipedia spirit and it will
work for the same reasons that Wikipedia works.
-- Jens
>that the Review Club could easily make a mistake and not realise when
it >has
>insufficient expertise -- people generally dislike admitting their
>limitations.
>It seems much better to me to have mandatory input from some expert
with
>evidence of his or her achievement.
>
>-- Matt (User:Matt Crypto)
Um what's to stop the expert making a mistake and not realising that he
has insufficient expertise?
Theresa
On 13 Sep 2004, at 15:47, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
> Message: 10
> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:44:46 -0400
> From: Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org>
>
> Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
>> What? How do you come to that conclusion? There *will* be no fork at
>> *all* -
>> the only thing that will be done is selecting one version of an
>> article that is
>> approved in some way. Any future approved version would be based on
>> the
>> development version (that is, a regular Wikipedia article which would
>> be in
>> perpetual development), not the last stable version.
>>
>>
> I can imagine at least one scenario that would lead to a bit of a fork,
> although whether it's a bad thing is not clear:
>
> Imagine that we have experts of some sort working on an article. They
> hash out between them and the others editing an article something
> reasonably neutral, and it becomes the "stable" version. A few months
> later, they come back, and the article has been editing by 500 people
> in
> the meantime and become mostly a mess. They decide to take a few of
> the
> good facts and improvements from the new version and "backport" them to
> the previous stable version rather than dealing with the mess of the
> development version, because frankly the last stable version was better
> (except for the few facts that were duly incorporated). That'd be a
> fork of sorts, I suppose.
>
> Of course, something similar happens on occasion already, which has
> been
> the subject of some revert wars...
>
> -Mark
This is precisely why I've insisted here
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030521.html
that
>> The review club would not edit. No editing would take place on the
>> stable branch. The job of the review club would only be to determine
>> whether "wiki" versions can be promoted to "stable". If an article
>> needs editing, the review club would say so on the talk page. Review
>> club members could edit ''in their other role of being regular
>> contributors'', but these edits would be treated ''the same as any
>> other contributor's edits''.
-- Jens