At 04:44 PM 11/16/2004 -0800, Mark Richards wrote:
Well, if it's strictly for version 1, then fine, but I really don't see why a group of 'experts' would make for a more reliable article, it seems that it would simply add the standard predjudices that these groups bring.
The current process of everyone being able to review seems to be better. For sure, eternal vigilence is needed.
Everyone would be able to review the choices the "experts" make, too. If you think the review process makes mistakes, point them out so they can either be corrected or defended. If you can demonstrate that the "experts" are in fact reducing the reliability of articles or introducing verifiable prejudices, then I expect there'd be a movement to fix whatever's causing the problem - perhaps even abolishing the whole review system as a bad idea, if it comes to that. At which point nothing at all will have been lost since Wikipedia will have continued chugging along regardless.