A stable version of Wikipedia has a questionable future if it does not rely on people with academic degrees as a very imporant part of our editorial review process. Anything less will result it in being considered one step above "fan fiction" by high-school, college and university professors.
There is an evident distrust towards academic degrees here, and it doesn't help us. It seems to stem from a misunderstanding of egalitarianism that many Wikipedia contributors have. Some people seem to think that egalitarianism means that all people are equally competant to review an article. This is just as true as saying that all people are equally tall, and that all food in a supermarket is equally nutritious. In other words, the proposition is violently false.
I'd honestly be willing to bet my life that a dozen Ph.D.s in Physics will produce better editorial oversight and corrections than a dozen self-selected Internet junkies, when it comes to reviewing Physics articles. I'd honestly be willing to bet my life that a dozen Ph.D.s in American Literature will produce better editorial oversight and corrections than a dozen self-selected Internet junkies, when it comes to reviewing American literature articles.
Accepting the fact that some people have studied a lot and have earned an academic degree does not prevent anyone else from contributing. It does not prevent anyone else from offering corrections or edits. It isn't even anti-egalitarian. True egalitarianism only means that all people have a right to study a subject, and to try and become experts in said subject. It does *not* mean that all people are already experts on said subject!
Robert (RK)
===== I�m astounded by people who want to "know" the universe when it�s hard enough to find your way around Chinatown. - Woody Allen
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Shop for Back-to-School deals on Yahoo! Shopping. http://shopping.yahoo.com/backtoschool