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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation