Erik Moeller wrote:
Magnus-
I'm not generally opposed to the sifter idea (and would suggest using the
Nupedia name for it), but I would like to know who decides which articles
can be used, and based on which decision making system. The way I see it
the sifter-editors will have two jobs to do:
1) decide whether an article is stylistically correct and does back up its
claims with references
2) decide whether the factual claims in the article are correct as per
scholarship on the matter.
Most good Wikipedians could do 1), but who will be allowed to do 2)? And
if there are several people who do so, how will conflicts be mediated? I
would prefer a policy similar to our current sysop policy: If you are
trusted to be an editor, you can become one until you are proven to be not
suitable for the subject area you have chosen. OTOH, in that case the
resulting project would still in part be run by amateurs. Is that
acceptable?
I'm not into "Ph.D.s only" (and not just because I've only just recently
started working on my doctoral thesis;-)
What we need in a sifter project are people that can be reasonably
trusted to import articles they can verify (your points 1 and 2 above).
Mainly, that means they know when *not* to touch a subject. I think
someone who has proven to work on wikipedia can become an editor (or
"importer"?).
But, as a sifter project promises to give accurate information just like
a "normal" encyclopedia (hell, that's the *only* point of a sifter
project!), we need to be careful not to let people import tit-and-tat
just because it looks OK at first glance. This does not mean amateurs
can't be trusted; it can mean the exact opposite, as an amateur will,
when in doubt, think "I better leave that to someone else"; a
professional might think "well, looks good, and I should know, I studied
that stuff for some time".
In general, the project would have to decide for areas
such as history
whether only the most recent scholarship is accepted, or whether different
viewpoints through time are presented. This is a case where I think a
consensus requirement might make sense.
Well, the sifter project Larry and I (among others) were working on is
"import only, edit on wikipedia". So, the discussion should take place
there. Beneficial, wikipedia will thus be improved by the sifter project.
The policies for the sifting process could be worked
out on regular
Wikipedia pages, and sifted just like all other material.
Oh, you already said it :-)
Magnus