Latest comment: 16 years ago by Sbharris in topic Content Arbcom

Accountability of admins


We lack funding to verify the identities of the admins, but Wikimedia privately verifying their identity to some level of certainty determined by funding and possibly including information relevant to conflict of interest would increase accountability and add to the trustworthiness of Wikipedia. I propose that a request for proposal be publicly be offered for a donation that would be contractually earmarked toward such an end with the details and amount left open for the submitting organization to suggest. 22:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC) (WAS 4.250)Reply

Content Arbcom


The "Apartheid in *" POINT problem has yet again shown the need for a content Arbcom. I suggest that Universities be contacted for named highly credentialed and respected volunteers to man an English-language Wikipedia content arbcom in which our regular arbcom passes them issues for deciding once and for all (or maybe only a year or two?) content decisions on highly limited but significant questions of fact that can not be resolved though consensus except by wearing out one side or the other. I see this as starting small and limited and becoming larger and more important and useful over time, especially with flagged versions. Using named people, limiting their time involvement, and limiting the issues to be decided can make this a post people will feel is worth their time and possibly useful in their career. 22:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC) (WAS 4.250)Reply

Sigh. Good luck with this, since the Evil Mr. Sanger and the Evil Citizendium decided that they had a need for review by recognized subject-matter-experts. Presumably so that pimple-faced kids with time on their hands don't win out by attrition, against people who do-things-in-the-real-world, who often don't have time to wage wikiwar over some factual dispute. But poor Evil Mr. Sanger didn't think of THAT idea by himself! It's the way academia, science, the professions and arts, and (even sometimes) governments already work. The really amazing thing is how far Wikipedia, constructed explicitly on anti-subject-matter-authoritarian lines (on authority from Jimbo, heh) has gotten WITHOUT explicit expert-review. But I submit the reason for that, is not that experts don't edit here. They do. Rather, Wikipedia is merely limping long on their willingess to submit to pain without recompense, in order to teach. Most of them are fools to do it. Myself not least. It's a zen paradox, as one more than user here has commented. Sbharris 01:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Independent evaluation of issues concerning bias


I propose a Request for Proposal be publicly issued for a grant/donation to the Wikimedia Foundation contractually earmarked for an independent evaluation of issues concerning bias where the amount and the details are part of the submitted proposal. Let complainers put their money where their mouth is. 22:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC) (WAS 4.250)Reply

Return to "Wikiquality" page.