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

[Fred Bauder]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Nina Stratton [mailto:ninaeliza at gmail.com]
>Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 07:56 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] editorial oversight, re: afd, fac, etc.
>
>On 1/12/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Message: 10
>> > Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:19:31 -0500
>> > From: "James Hare" <messedrocker at gmail.com>
>> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)
>> > To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>> > Message-ID:  <
>> 43348cda0701120919k15954458g636078210a2adede at mail.gmail.com>
>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>> >
>> > I suggested something on another thread that stated that only people
>> with
>> > background in a certain field should be qualified to judge notability.
>> > Chemists determine chemical notability, Finns determine notability of
>> > Finnish folk, the list goes on. Perhaps it's time to give AFD a good ol'
>> > reworking to separate the opinions of people who are qualified to speak
>> > about the subject's notability and outsider's opinions (both are
>> important,
>> > but we can't put the fingers of clueless people on the red button).
>> > Hopefully, through this, closing AFDs will be based less on vote
>> counting
>> > and more on evaluating the opinions of people.
>>
>> I'd have to agree with James on this one.  This could also be a boon for
>> FA
>> and GA promotions.  It would diminish the tendancy for voting at AFD, FAC,
>> etc. to look like a division of "i don't like it" and the "i like it"
>> camps.
>>
>> Several months ago, an AFD came up for "Amafanius", an early Roman
>> Epicurean
>> philosopher whose works, while unfortunately lost to the ages, were
>> discussed at length in the works of Cicero (who trashed Amafanius with
>> glee), and in Michel de Montaigne.  Because of their referencing,
>> the philosophical offerings of Amafanius can actually be
>> reconstructed...but
>> only in broad strokes.  As someone who studied classics at Rutgers and am
>> well-versed in this area, I recognized that he was notable and should have
>> a
>> place here at Wikipedia.  Thankfully, because a few others were just as
>> well-versed, we were able to save the article.
>>
>> But, unfortunately, as it typical around here,  a large number of users
>> who
>> obvious appeared to be the tech-saavy, internet-raised Pokemon-crowd for
>> whom nothing exists before, say, 20 years ago, voted for "Delete".
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Christopher D. Thieme
>> User:ExplorerCDT
>>
>
>
>Try Citizendium. Google it. Go there now.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Nina

That is not a viable solution. We need to solve our problems, not push good people off to another project. AfD is broken. Maybe we could split AfD up into areas. That way it would not be the unwieldy monster it is and those of us with some expertise could stand to have it on our watchlists and show up.

Fred