On 6/4/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)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