"Sourcing Adjudication Board, consisting of credentialed subject-matter experts insofar as is reasonable, which shall be tasked with examining complaints regarding the inappropriate use of sources on Wikipedia"

Anyone who has worked with such problems on other projects--web or otherwise--will know that this merely transfers the problem to first, selecting just who is actually an expert, and second, dealing with their disagreements--where typically they try to upstage each other's credentials. Just ask anyone who has tried to reconcile conflicting peer-reviews in the academic world.

On 4/29/08, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

So says one of our Lords and Masters :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/P...

My own view is this: Wikipedia's dispute resolution process works fine when it's case of two or more good-faith contributors engaging in a genuine debate over something where debate is meaningful. The process is hopelessly inadequate to deal with editors who act tendentiously or not in good faith, or in circumstances where there is no meaningful debate to be had (homeopathy).

Do others agree? And if so, what are the fixes?

CM

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo. _________________________________________________________________ 100's of prizes to be won at BigSnapSearch.com http://www.bigsnapsearch.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l