On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 6:43 PM, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote: > Oliver Keyes wrote: >> To reply to Jussi; I think we're uniformly confused as to what you think is >> the link between an encyclopedia written by experts, and an encyclopedia >> that asks average joes to provide comments on articles (other than the >> "encyclopedia" bit, of course :-)). If you want this thread to go anywhere >> productively on that issue, you should probably start by explaining what >> you see as the link. > > Past versions of this extension have included a call for people to > self-identify as experts (or as "highly knowledgeable") in an article's > topic.[1] > > It seems like version 5 no longer includes this checkbox,[2] but I think > it's slightly unreasonable to suggest that only "average Joes" are being > asked to provide comments on articles. > > I read Cimon's concerns as this tool (and future iterations) moving closer > to the idea of expert-approved or expert-endorsed revisions (implicitly or > explicitly). It's an interesting dichotomy between the extension's stated > goal of trying to attract new users and the extension's past (and present?) > interface that encourages self-identified expert commentary, isn't it? >
I do apologize if I am undedrmining your defense of my personal position. I do not think the aims of the mechanism are wrong. But I *do* think the mechanism itself and any attempts to fashion such in a universe of human beings is totally and fundamentally disrespectful towards reality. That is the hard shoulder. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
