The option to self-identify as an expert is more to try and gauge where AFT respondents are coming from, as opposed to excluding non-experts. Average joes are asked to provide comment, and then asked to identify if they are, for whatever reason, *not* average joes.
On 24 December 2011 16:43, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Oliver Keyes wrote:
To reply to Jussi; I think we're uniformly confused as to what you think
is
the link between an encyclopedia written by experts, and an encyclopedia that asks average joes to provide comments on articles (other than the "encyclopedia" bit, of course :-)). If you want this thread to go
anywhere
productively on that issue, you should probably start by explaining what you see as the link.
Past versions of this extension have included a call for people to self-identify as experts (or as "highly knowledgeable") in an article's topic.[1]
It seems like version 5 no longer includes this checkbox,[2] but I think it's slightly unreasonable to suggest that only "average Joes" are being asked to provide comments on articles.
I read Cimon's concerns as this tool (and future iterations) moving closer to the idea of expert-approved or expert-endorsed revisions (implicitly or explicitly). It's an interesting dichotomy between the extension's stated goal of trying to attract new users and the extension's past (and present?) interface that encourages self-identified expert commentary, isn't it?
MZMcBride
[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback#Version_3 [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l