On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 6:43 PM, 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?
I do apologize if I am undedrmining your defense of my personal position. I do not think the aims of the mechanism are wrong. But I *do* think the mechanism itself and any attempts to fashion such in a universe of human beings is totally and fundamentally disrespectful towards reality. That is the hard shoulder.