2009/2/16 Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com:
K. Peachey wrote:
'But the failure to take seriously the suggestion of any role of
experts can only be considered a failure of imagination,' writes Sanger. 'One need only ask what an open, bottom-up system with a role for expert decision-making would be like.'
In other words, despite all appearances, CZ is superior to WP. Well, I think we saw where this was going a little earlier.
Which in practice will end up a bit like this:
http://reinderdijkhuis.com/wordpress/2009/02/12/citizendium-the-encyclopedia...
Precis: experts are not a panacea.
cf: Stirling Newberry's many posts several years ago to wikien-l and wikipedia-l pointing out that the problem with a lot of experts is that they got to be experts by pushing a POV better than anyone else.
(Larry Sanger is aware of this blog post, and dismisses it as missing the point. However, the Citizendium article on homeopathy is still an NPOV disaster.)
In any case, we're not short of experts on Wikipedia. You can hardly move without bumping into a Ph.D. It's not nicknamed "Unemployed Ph.D Deathmatch" for nothing.
- d.