Gerard writes: >>The trouble is that attempts to make something that lures experts but keeps idiots out of their faces have so far failed and/or attracted no attention, even from the experts (Citizendium, Scholarpedia). That is, they sound like a good idea; but in practice, Wikipedia has so far been the least worst system.
True. But is there not some way of making Wikipedia just a little more attractive to people who have studied the subject? I used to propose things like credentials based on trust earned on Wikipedia (which would require getting trust from other trusted editors, much like in financial markets). These all naturally got shot down, and silly of me to have tried. But is there not some way of just making it a little easier? The problem is that until someone sits up and notices the serious errors that are propagated through Wikipedia (and which are now becoming part of the folk wisdom of the internet), no one will be bothered. The problem is that no one *knows* there are problems, and so no one can be bothered. I've started documenting the problem in a small way, e.g. here http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/06/william-of-ockham.html and here http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/06/avicennian-logic.html , but this is only in my own area of expertise. What is the very smallest thing that could be done, I wonder? Peter _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
