On 09/13/04 09:06, Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au>
wrote:
>If you don't suppose they are correct, why do
we need to throw a
>spanner into the works of Wikipedia to mollify them? You haven't
>demonstrated the burning need to follow a course of action you
>here admit isn't actually necessarily justifiable.
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.
Yes, but, as I stated before, "we need to do something" and "this is
something" do not mean "we need to do this".
You're proposing adding a reified layer of appointed experts. I strongly
suggest we are unlikely to go wrong by taking a much more gradual approach.
e.g. the current proposal for reference tagging within the wiki markup,
which would make articles far more checkable; the rating system already
in play on test; approaches which would use the wiki method rather than
seemingly invalidating it.
- d.