that the Review Club could easily make a mistake and not realise when
it >has
insufficient expertise -- people generally dislike admitting their limitations. It seems much better to me to have mandatory input from some expert
with
evidence of his or her achievement.
-- Matt (User:Matt Crypto)
Um what's to stop the expert making a mistake and not realising that he has insufficient expertise?
Theresa
--- "KNOTT, T" tknott@qcl.org.uk wrote:
that the Review Club could easily make a mistake and not realise when
it >has
insufficient expertise -- people generally dislike admitting their limitations. It seems much better to me to have mandatory input from some expert
with
evidence of his or her achievement.
-- Matt (User:Matt Crypto)
Um what's to stop the expert making a mistake and not realising that he has insufficient expertise?
The scenario is that Wikipedia editors have found an expert with a proven track-record in the specific subject area of the article, and solicited his opinion. In this scenario, the expert's track-record provides some evidence that the expert has the expertise -- we wouldn't be relying on his or her self-evaluation. Such evidence could never be conclusive, but I think it's a lot better than none at all.
-- Matt (User:Matt Crypto)
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt R" matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk
The scenario is that Wikipedia editors have found an expert with a proven track-record in the specific subject area of the article, and solicited his opinion. In this scenario, the expert's track-record provides some evidence that the expert has the expertise -- we wouldn't be relying on his or her self-evaluation. Such evidence could never be conclusive, but I think it's a lot better than none at all.
Who is it that would evaluate their "proven track-record" and how would such a decision reached? And for how many articles would this process need to be repeated (it sounds like you're suggesting an expert review is needed for all)?
Personally, I'm much more comfortable with the earlier suggestion that groups of conscientious Wikipedians could fairly review a large portion of Wikipedia articles AND come to recognize when some outside referee might be needed--and solicit assistance only where needed.
Bkonrad