Ensuring high quality sources where needed, especially science/academic topics (narrow focus)

I view the workshop or tutorial as an entry-device only, just a first step. I don't object to making it a requirement for senior editor but I still see nothing wrong with making it a requrement for all future registered users. The on-line tutorial I did for Human Subjects Committee was pretty easy and about 20 minutes and I really don't see many potential registered users being turned away from it. Yeah, it is a screening device, but that is not its main function its main function is to ensure that the growing mass of registered users have a basic understanding of NPOV, V and NOR, and the most basic understanding of research. Given Wikipedia's claims to be the first point source of knowledge, and our appreciation of quality problems, and the effect of registered users, just by sheer weight, I think this is justified. It sends a message about what is important, it heightens awareness and sensitivity - not for all, but it will, for many.

I agree in porinciple about track-record but I am very concerned about any reliable rmeasure. There are people with 40,000 edits who are crappy editors. I have never been involved in a GA or FA - does this make me a bad editor? We have lots of metrics we could use, I am just saying I don't really trust the.

And I don't really trust the kind of vetting process we have for admins - I am still wary of setting up a hierarchy at Wikipedia. So I think we need to discuss more, to what uses such a hierarchy would be put. And as ourselves if the same effects cannot be achieved through other means.

For example, my idea of a kind of protection that requires three editors to agree for an edit - and we can refine this, say three editors who have been watching the article for at least six months. Such a kind of protection requires no greater hierarchy than this extremely localized one (people who have been watching the article for some time), the real point is to encourage consensus based edits by people who have demonstrated an interest in and commitment to the article. If it means a newbie 9even one with a PhD) presenting it on the talk page and there being some discussion, well - why not do this? Won't this ensure a higher level of quality AND stability? Slrubenstein 18:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)