On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Harry Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Perhaps all the very controversial subjects from the current wikipedia >> should be removed and placed in a distinct wikipedia dedicated to very >> controversial subjects. > > > I do not think that will happen. The Wikipedia management would not agree. I > do not see any need for that. Here is how I imagine it might work: > > Someone else starts an on-line encyclopedia of science, based on traditional > academic standards. Maybe the APS or a university could do this. Gradually, > more readers turn to the academic website. Wikipedia articles on science are > read less often. They are not updated as much. Some are revised with > information from the academic site, and links to it. > > (I don't like the APS policies toward cold fusion but I suppose they can > handle other subjects better than Wikipedia does.) > > Getting back to my analogy, the Model T was not replaced overnight. It was > replaced gradually over many years as competition heated up. Sales at GM > overtook Ford in 1927. That was the year Ford finally stopped producing the > model T. > > The car was improved over the production run. It wasn't the exact same > machine from 1908 to 1927. Wikipedia has also been improved. It might be > improved again, with a better structure, to address the weaknesses that I > and others have pointed out. > > - Jed >
I think contributors to a controversial subject must self-identify as either pro or con. That way readers can *immediately* see from the user name on which side of the controversy each contributor stands. The controversial subject should also be moderated but not in anonymity. harry
