On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 23:57:38 +1100, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Tony Sidaway (minorityreport@bluebottle.com) [050207 23:54]:
Deathphoenix said:
You'd probably need to have a small team of volunteers willing to act as moderators for each article (of course, people would be moderating much more than a single "protected article"). The current {{protected}} system is good for protecting the article so that only admins can edit it, so if the moderators were admins, that would work.
Create content moderators and you create a point of weakness. The best safeguard of content is verifiability. The existing dispute resolution process can deal with people who repeatedly make unverifiable edits.
But we *must* kill the wiki in order to save it. Else all the editors will leave in disgust and Britannica will not take us seriously. Possibly we should vote on it.
Votes are exactly the sort of things that POV-pushing groups can understand. As we see, they can organise themselves for votes. All you gotta do is stand up and be counted, the more times the better.
Actually thinking or researching is a little more difficult. God forbid we should build an encyclopaedia on the lowest common denominator.
I go for the verifiable research test - if NeoNazis are anything like the sort of fringe dwellers I see on Usenet, their idea of research consists of something they might have heard on TV or talkback radio.