Again, I think we're looking at a fundamental misunderstanding here: I DID NOT and I am not trying to ''exclude'' academics. We need academics. The higher qualified the better. The more of them choose to join our review club the better. ("review club" proposed here: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/ 030521.html) Nobody (not me, anyway) has been, or is contesting that academic individuals, their knowledge and the academic education system have real usefulness. Again, the more academics join us, the better. The only thing I am lobbying you all against is that we (a) make degrees a requirement of some sort at any stage in the process and/or (b) automatically value input from an academic more than input from a non-academic. I still think it is obvious (to me anyway) that ''most'' of the time academics will prevail with their views. ''But they will do so '''based on the merit of what they say'' and NOT based on the recognition of their title.'' Currently, no contributor is allowed to argue: "But I am a senior professor of quantum dynamics, so I win and you shut up!" It is VERY important that this remains so. Yes, there should be academics in the review club, and no, they should not ever even mention their titles. '''They should converse as EQUALS with all other fellow reviewers.''' No one, not even a professor of quantum dynamics, should be allowed to settle a dispute with a reference to their prior achievement (ie. title, etc.). They should thus have ONE vote, just as everybody else. This will not stop their valid views from prevailing. Giving everybody the chance to truly converse as equals will bring out the best in both academics and laymen alike. (NB: My idea to ban even mentioning degrees is merely a ''safeguard against self-censorship'' of non-academics. Because most non-academics will indeed "shut up" if they notice the other person to have a title -- out of exaggerated awe, even if they have perfectly points to make.) Titles or degrees shouldn't be a requirement for joining ANY chapter of the review club either. Qualified academics will ''automatically'' join the relevant review boards. We do ''not'' have to look for "experts with titles" in any way. We do ''not'' have to expressly set out to install a quota of accredited academics into the review boards. Given the mere establishment of ''sensible, disciplined and democratic'' fora, academics will join them in large numbers. And they will be more productive there if we allow ANY interested individuals to join as well, with requirements of ''constructiveness, not of prior achievement'' in fields of knowledge work. Every parent knows that it's children's questions that teach us the most. We should continue to rely on ''people'' (a fair share of whom happen to hold academic degrees). We should not rely on "degrees" per se. Yes, outside esteem is an issue, because the traditional system of knowledge review (see above link) is so well established. But again, as mentioned here: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030552.html , outside and Wikipedian academics will, in time, do that work for us: Just as those academics already in our midst, they will increasingly come to recognize our value and '''become opinion leaders''', telling those who need their truths "straight from the horse's mouth" that we really ARE ''all that''. No there isn't. Academics are welcome. '''I just want to avoid building automatic bias towards opinions of degree holders back into a revolutionarily unbiased system (the Wikipedia).''' Well, I don't believe that. But everybody should be given an equal shot at contributing to the review process. Any less well thought out views will just not get very far. BUT: --this is important to comprehend-- mostly less competent people intermittently have very valid and well thought out contributions to make. Under the traditional system of knowledge review, those are almost always lost. moot point What I believe you're missing is that the "Internet junkies" contain a fair share of Ph.D.s -- and they will ''automatically'' find their way into the relevant review boards. That's exactly what I seek to ensure, both with the edit process AND, crucially, with the next generation of our review process. Thanks and regards, Jens Ropers PS: Selected related posts (mostly by me ;-) : http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030496.html http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030523.html http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030519.html http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030506.html http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030507.html http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030521.html (same link as above) http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030551.html http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030552.html (same link as above)