On 09/13/04 09:06, Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
If you don't suppose they are correct, why do we need to throw a spanner into the works of Wikipedia to mollify them? You haven't demonstrated the burning need to follow a course of action you here admit isn't actually necessarily justifiable.
We need a way to select content for the print/stable version and to make sure that that content is good quality and can be trusted.
Yes, but, as I stated before, "we need to do something" and "this is something" do not mean "we need to do this".
You're proposing adding a reified layer of appointed experts. I strongly suggest we are unlikely to go wrong by taking a much more gradual approach. e.g. the current proposal for reference tagging within the wiki markup, which would make articles far more checkable; the rating system already in play on test; approaches which would use the wiki method rather than seemingly invalidating it.
- d.