--- Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I disagree with you. Personally, I would distinguish between the process for writing articles, and the process of evaluating the quality of articles. For the former, when *writing* articles, academic qualifications should confer no additional authority or weight -- an unqualified person should have an equal right to edit the content of an article as should a PhD.
However, when certifying the quality of articles, I think expert review (in addition to general review) is necessary -- I can give reasons for this, if you want. Academic qualifications are one form of evidence of expertise. ... P.S. I like the idea of "stable" vs "development" versions of an article.
<aol>I very much agree with this.</aol>
The stable version could be at http://en.wikipedia.org/stable/Article_Name and the development version would still be at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Name with appropriate backlinks and a different-enough UI to make the distinction obvious.
But we have to start something ala Larry's sifter idea since we are getting slammed in the media due to our perceived non-trusted status (I personally think these objections are laughable since they are comparing us to encyclopedias that are hundreds of years old and that have very similar disclaimers).
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com