On 6/4/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Where and how are we going to find anonymous experts?
Fred
Isn't that a large part of our demographic? Heck, we could simply consider anyone who shows an interest in agiven topic an "expert", but if thats not good enough somebody higher up could check their credentials.
People could fax their diploma or some such. It doesn't seem like a huge deal to me. Personally I'd just like to see some '''informed''' party with the final say (i.e. not a random, non-expert admin or arbiter).
Why do you think I was edit warring? To make articles better. There is a power vacuum, and I was trying to do what worked. I was able to get the taxobox at the top of the human page by edit warring. Of course I discuss throughout as well. Each and every one of the pages in question has a talk page, to which I contributed extensively. Unfortunately, edit warring doesn't work when your outnumbered by determined POV pushers working as a voting bloc.
That, combined with the fact that I was asked politely to make some changes in my RfC convinced me to stop. Thats all it takes, just a polite request. Just like a prison sentance doesn't stop crime, your ARBCOM doesn't prevent abuses of your system. People who are abusive will do what they can, when they can, and thats alot.
I am not an abuser however, I am an offended contributer. The fact that you can't tell the difference is a big problem.
You need an organic solution to the differences of opinion (editing disputes) that crop up on each and every controversial page. You can't ban and punish your way out of it. Contributers don't deserve it, and the abusers just ignore you and create a new account on a new computer. Punishment makes people worse, trust me.
SS