I very much hope this does not happen. Setting up
'expert reviews' would be the death of the project.
Mark
--- Robert <rkscience100(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Sheldon writes:
A wiki is merely a technology. It is a means to
an
end,
not an end in itself. The end goal here is to
create a
free, accurate, comprehensive encyclopedia. The
wiki
aspect of Wikipedia has enabled it to move
rapidly
in
what is generally the right direction, but in the
process of doing so, the wiki notion that "anyone
can edit any article" has been adjusted already in
various ways: sysops, soft and hard bans,
arbitration,
and so forth. If need be, the wiki rules could
be
adjusted further. For example, there is no reason
in
theory why ...
...the point is that the Wikipedia doesn't have to
rely
on "some unspecified quasi-Darwinian
process" ....
...We can specify any process we want....
Very well said!
I think that for some time Wikipedia has been
effectively
ruled by a clique that has some affinity for
anarchy; they
have elevated the Wiki software to the level of an
ideology. But all of the rules you mention are
necessary
developments for Wikipedia to achieve its goal -
being a
reliable and respected open-source encyclopedia.
Adding a level of peer-review, or having a subset of
our
articles reviewed by people with academic degrees in
the
field are also possibilities to add onto the system
we
already have.
A note about the accuracy of our articles:
Obviously, gross
errors and POV pushing usually get quickly fixed.
Wikipedia's Achilles' heel is the minor error, which
can
continue uncorrected for months or years. If somone
wrote
the wrong birth and death dates for various
scientists, or
rabbis or singers, or if someone made a mistake in
naming
the university they went to,how many people would
spot the
error? With the exception of articles on famous
people,
darn few.
The probable existence of thousands of minor
uncorrected
errors is one of the major arguments for a new level
of
review by people with some sort of academic
background in
the field, or by one who can be trusted to do some
serious
research. Such a level of review would not take
away from
anyone's ability to contribute; it would only
improve the
accuracy of articles we already have.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!