Magnus-
I'm not generally opposed to the sifter idea (and would suggest using the
Nupedia name for it), but I would like to know who decides which articles
can be used, and based on which decision making system. The way I see it
the sifter-editors will have two jobs to do:
1) decide whether an article is stylistically correct and does back up its
claims with references
2) decide whether the factual claims in the article are correct as per
scholarship on the matter.
Most good Wikipedians could do 1), but who will be allowed to do 2)? And
if there are several people who do so, how will conflicts be mediated? I
would prefer a policy similar to our current sysop policy: If you are
trusted to be an editor, you can become one until you are proven to be not
suitable for the subject area you have chosen. OTOH, in that case the
resulting project would still in part be run by amateurs. Is that
acceptable?
In general, the project would have to decide for areas such as history
whether only the most recent scholarship is accepted, or whether different
viewpoints through time are presented. This is a case where I think a
consensus requirement might make sense.
The policies for the sifting process could be worked out on regular
Wikipedia pages, and sifted just like all other material.
Regards,
Erik