This would give our experts something which their special qualifications, knowing the literature, would provide real help to Wikipedia. We would still need to be on the look out for axe grinders. However, the biases of scholars who have an extensive body of published work are not that hard to figure out. We might require some real names and verification for this. I seem this as more a committee of thousands than dozens; but that's looking ahead.
Fred
From: Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com Reply-To: Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 19:11:46 -0500 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Rules, expertise, and encyclopedic standards
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:56:26 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
This is something courts do when they are faced with fact situations they aren't competent to deal with. Sometimes such a fact finder is called a special master. This will become much easier to do as more experts become aware of and interested in Wikipedia.
Neat tidbit. It seems to me it would require a very large pool of people to draw on. Sort of like the 100+ usage experts for the American Heritage Dictionary -- not exclusive, just anyone who has expertise, or a good editing history in that area...
It could be ugly if there were a fixed set of 3 or 4 people for each subject who were called on each time; or if simple content disputes, which would otherwise have been resolved elsewhere, were encouraged to come before the AC.
-- +sj+ _ _ :-------.-.--------.--.--------.-.--------.--.--------[...] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l