On 3/14/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
We're not saying "we should institute a method for any random person to make unqualified, unassailable, assertions". We're talking about letting *the subject* point factual errors out to us. If we're automatically assuming that subjects are untrustworthy, I look forward to banning the use of autobiographies and corporate histories as sources.
I can see what Eloquence was getting at now, in the sense that there needs to be something inbetween the Office and the Mob - using an open version of the OTRS model.
I think the OTRS part is a great idea, but making the leap from "edit this wiki" to "primary source" is an enormous and presumptive interpretation -- perhaps overstated, but nevertheless something best left to people to judge after a new system is set up.
I suggested something like a ticket-based model just as a way to organize workflow. I never would have come up with the idea that subjects would want to register themselves. This "registrationalism" might infringe on NPOV. We aren't qualified to take people's affidavits after all, nor to investigate particular claims. And because its tacky to edit your own articles after all, ultimately they would want to make their changes anonymously, which sort of contradicts your idea, doesnt it. Foundation bureaucracy 2.0?
Maybe Im not reading it right. -Stevertigo