[WikiEN-l] A future for Nupedia?

[Patrick Aiden Hunt]

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Mayer [mailto:maveric149 at yahoo.com] 


>--- "KNOTT, T" <tknott at qcl.org.uk> wrote:

>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Delirium [mailto:delirium at hackish.org] 
>> 
>> >I don't think academic credentials are very good ones. 
>> > Perhaps some measure of involvement in Wikipedia would 
>> >be a reasonable start, as most of our longtime 
>> >contributors are reasonably reliable.
>> >
>> >-Mark
>> 
>> 
>> Perhaps articles should be reviewed by at least a couple of people.
One
>> 'expert' plus one long term wikipedian, in whom we trust.

>Sounds good to me. 

>--mav

I know this may seem to some to be a silly question, but why do you need
someone with academic credentials reviewing articles? Any normal
encyclopedia simply uses a basic bibliography and the information in the
article is from books that are written by experts who have academic
credentials already recognized. If we had people simply cite sources for
information, then it seems like we would have to worry much less about
the reviewers' credentials.

I mostly contribute to articles regarding U.S. Supreme Court cases and
legislation, so all I have to do is cite the actual opinion or portion
of the U.S. Code. But I imagine if I were contributing to an article on
another academic field I am interested in (such as Economics), I would
simply cite Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" or Keynes' "The General
Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" or whatever economic treatise
the particular theory or concept came from. I would think it would make
little sense to have an academic scholar waste time signing off on the
article if all the reader would have to do is check the text that the
information comes from to ensure it's accuracy.

What am I missing?

-Skyler