"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(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
So says one of our Lords and Masters :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/…
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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG