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.