On 9/19/06, Kim van der Linde kim@kimvdlinde.com wrote:
Suppose I am doing a Ph.D. study, and want to become a expert in a field. What is nicer than to work with some experts in that field to create good quality articles. To many people seem under the impression that Citizendium is written solely by experts, my impression is that the bulk of the work is still done by many authors together, with a major difference that only a 'finalised' version is approved and visible for the larger public. Just imagine that a group of people works together adding a new page that do not have to fight with POV-pushers of fringe or bullshit ideas (expert guidance) and vandals (not approved, no reward for vandalism), while at the same time can benefit from the expertise of those same experts to get towards a much better article as those experts do know the literature much better, know which [[WP:V]] [[WP:RS]] to use (no blanket criteria needed anymore). Furthermore, an added incentive would be that quality contributors are being recognized by those experts, which results in better working relationships, but also more praise and feedback....
This is precisely the way I have seen things work well over 99% of the time on wikipedia. If on a given article it does not, I give it my honest best effort if I think conciliation has a reasonable shot, but if not, move on to another part of the pedia, where people are quietly and collegially working, just in the manner as you describe above; bar the fact that on wikipedia the *natural* deference to people who know what they talk about, has not become a deference to *graven emblems*. (Although, I will admit the hierarchicism fetishizers are always at the gate.)