[WikiEN-l] editorial oversight, re: afd, fac, etc.

[Jeff Raymond]

Christopher Thieme wrote:

> One of the failings, one that probably contributes to some of the negative
> reputation Wikipedia has earned, is that it does not have any expert
> oversight.  Perhaps some sort of prominent, scholarly, editorial advisory
> board would be in order?  Even if loosely bureaucratic, it would add a
> little more weight to the credibility of the encyclopedia that would be a
> worthwhile step in counteracting an image diminished by our pop-culture
> heaviness (pokemon, star trek, etc.) and "anyone can edit (read:
> vandalise/insert false information)" repuation.

Here's the problem, though - even with those, you're still going to get
people who see a philosopher like what you said and bring it up for
deletion, even if it's well-sourced.  Really, a board doesn't need to be
in order as much as an escape from "notability" as a criteria at all,
instead focusing on other rationales for inclusion.

I don't know if there's a perfect system, in any regard.  People ignore
the "notability" criteria as is, and not having any criteria in place will
certainly eliminate otherwise necessary/good/great/featured articles due
to their overall lack of significant rememberance.  Perhaps Fred's idea
has some merit as well, but I'm not sure there's a good way to assure that
the articles we should have stay, and the articles we shouldn't get
deleted.

-Jeff