Roy Schestowitz wrote:
Maybe they can introduce a
mod-point-like system whereby authors earn a measure of credibility.
That is a terrible idea!
At the same time it have never failed me yet, so it
already earned credibility.
It's worth looking at the history of changes to figure out how many people
were involved in editing and 'negotiating' the information that is publicly
available. You don't want to be exposed to a so-called monologue.
I'd rather read someones doctorate thesis rather than the inane
iterations of 100 theoretical monkies with typewriters.
Fortunately, people who know and care about the subjects they write
about tend to make sure wikipedia's entries remain valuable, and those
that just want to write crap lose interest and go elsewhere...
...a bit like trolls in newsgroups.
That is yet another power of the Wiki.
And bless all who sail in her!