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? MZMcBride [1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback#Version_3 [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
