Moved from the proposal page :
- You are being elitist. There are no universal standards for "reliable information". This incessant push for higher standards of editorial rigamarole is just driving away new information sources. Newbies are already completely despised and crapped on. This is just a logical progession of the elitist development of Wiki.
- No, I am not. I don't want to change Wikipedia. I want to make possible to create a highly reliable information source next to Wikipedia, using Wikipedia. Newbies do not have to edit this project at all. They can put their energy into Wikipedia which still will have sense.
- There is really no universal standards for "reliable information". These standards have to be established in a new project similarly the Wikipedia established standards for its content, of course.
Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Impact is straightforward. The user would get as reliable information as possible. He would know that the article was peer-review by experts. Miraceti 17:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Having "Experts" deciding what is correct and should be kept is not going to improve reliability. Who is going to decide who should be the expert? How are articles going to be improved? How will users learn how to improve aricles if control is handed over to Experts? --Alchemist Jack 17:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)