[Wikipedia-l] Do we really need a Sifter project?

[steve vertigo]

>MAV penned (condensed): ""We are talking about
>creating a stable version of the articles.Nupedia
would be a stable distribution of that content that
has been checked by experts.....I have a 
baccalaureate degree in biology but that doesn't mean
I'm staking my reputation on anything I write in the
biology section as 'maveric149.'   But if I am
checking facts in a biology article submitted to
Nupedia I /will/ be staking my reputation on the
factual accuracy of the article. ....As an added bonus
Wikipedia gets an article whose facts have been
checked by somebody who should know what they are
talking about. 
There is no such stamp of approval on Wikipedia
>articles now. ...I'm the type of person who likes to
>use stable distributions. """

POINT BY POINT REFUTATION:

1. Stable version is a euphemism for "selected for
quality" a brilliantly disguised elitism that, if seen
for what it is -- leads to a direct conflict with FDL.

2. Quote: "MY reputation"  - so its about YE, now is
it Mr. Maverick?)  
3.  It may be, Mav -- that if you were concerned with
"stable distributions" and 'staked reputations'  that
YOU may have been "involved with the wrong project"
from the get-go.

Wink, wink.
-S-






__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com