This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kubanczyk (talk | contribs) at 20:28, 3 June 2008 (→I hate this). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:28, 3 June 2008 by Kubanczyk (talk | contribs) (→I hate this)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Expert review |
|---|
Your constructive feedback and discussion in regards to expert review is welcomed on this page provided that you abide reasonably with all English Misplaced Pages behavioural policies.
I hate this
Whomever is behind this seems to have forgotten something: Misplaced Pages relies on reliable published sources, not expert personal ones. A project like this, if active, is sure to bring about some self-important expert from academia who wants to add or remove content in contradiction to source materials. The values and goals of academic experts in a field are in direct contradiction to ours. Experts expect to be paid, and they expect to have complete control over their work, as well as authorship rights. I for one will not be deferring constantly to some nosy and policy-ignorant academic when writing our articles. Of course, I'm of the firm belief (having given talks on Misplaced Pages to college professors personally) that this will not draw the kind of interest needed from experts to make it live. Misplaced Pages has been successful to date based on dedicated volunteers, not elitist experts. VanTucky 18:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- I hate this too. This is so not-wiki. Am I 10 years in the past or what? Nowadays, every reader is a "reviewer", and - guess what - instead of writing some ego-pumping prose, they actually fix problems with the article immediately. Isn't the wiki technology magical? And this works in practice, too. --Kubanczyk (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC) If the reviews are actually used to fix articles later, then this proposal violates WP:Consensus:
| “ | Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, should never over-ride community consensus on a wider scale, unless convincing arguments cause the new process to become widely accepted. | ” |
- However, this proposal does not explicitly state that. In the current form assumes that the reviews... hmmm... just lay unused here, off-topic in the Misplaced Pages namespace (Misplaced Pages namespace is for information about the Misplaced Pages itself), apparently just wasting the disk space. --Kubanczyk (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)