In a message dated 2/8/2008 9:53:51 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, thomas.dalton@gmail.com writes:
With an official policy on how to utilise experts. I'm not sure what it should say, but I think it is something we need. At the moment, experts are treated just like any other editor, which is great from an ideological point of view, but isn't actually very useful.>> ------------------- We've had the debate on credentials. In fact there is a user actively writing up an essay on evidence that we have no credential policy.
Sounds odd to me personally. It's like saying "we have no cumquats", its sort of a null statement. Personally, as a professional researcher, I think we "should" have a method by which credential claims can be verified. But of course I'm biased like that.
I also think we should roll back about 90 percent of the bots and the low-response action-pages like blacklist, whitelist, etc. where one or two people control the entire apparatus.
Will Johnson
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300000... 48)
Personally, as a professional researcher, I think we "should" have a method by which credential claims can be verified. But of course I'm biased like that.
I agree.
I also think we should roll back about 90 percent of the bots and the low-response action-pages like blacklist, whitelist, etc. where one or two people control the entire apparatus.
How would that help anything? The bots and action-pages are serving a useful purpose. Just because only a handful of people are interest in doing the busy work doesn't means they control it - anyone can come along and help out, they just don't.