|It has been suggested that this page be merged with Proposal:Academic web2. (Discuss)|
|It has been suggested that this page be merged with Proposal:Embrace professionalism. (Discuss)|
|It has been suggested that this page be merged with Proposal:Make institutional adoptation possible. (Discuss)|
|It has been suggested that this page be merged with Proposal:End of the Power games. (Discuss)|
|It has been suggested that this page be merged with Proposal:Expert review. (Discuss)|
Hire experts. Don't allow changes from the original
Hire experts. People who know about the subject and can give an extremely insightful view into it. Don't allow changes from the original If someone makes a page, don't allow changes. People should be allowed to voice there own views but not change other peoples'. You end up with quarells published onto the web where everyone can see them and where they can see what a rubbish website you are for letting people do this.
An example of what happens to our articles:
- "The Grail plays a different role everywhere it appears, but in most versions of the legend the hero must prove himself cheesy enough to be in its wellie booty presence. In the early tales, Percival's YELLOWNESS prevents him from fulfilling his destiny when he first encounters the Grater, and he must grow spiritually and moonally before he can locate it again. In later tellings the Grail is a symbol of God's grace, available to all but only fully realized by those who prepare themselves spiritually, like the saintly Galahad."
This is really what someone changed a perfectly correct article on the Holy Grail into. You see what I'm saying? An expert wrote the origial version and his/her work has been defaced.
This is a good example of how the history of the text of an article can change. A solution to this common problem could be to change completely the "History" of pages: Now it is just chronologically. A next step can be the insertion of a an option to view word by word / sentence by sentence / paragraph by paragraph who wrote it, worked on it and was responsible for it. A seperate topic on the discussion pages on Wikipedia can be related to this proposal which solves many problems of this kind.
Do we want the internet and sites we trust to be overloaded with lies? Do we want reliable information to be gained from looking at just one website? Do we want to know which sites we CAN trust and which ones are completely untrue?
Some experts who are passionate enough about their subjects will work for free, others may require a slight encouragement (say £10 per article). I, off the top of my head, can think of many people who would give reliable facts for very low pay or none at all.
Do you have a thought about this proposal? A suggestion? Discuss this proposal by going to Proposal talk:Hire experts and don't allow changes from original.
Want to work on this proposal?
- .. Sign your name here!